Does Bigfoot Exist?

[LeafTalker]

Aaron, thank you so much for that statement!!!

 

Ontario Sasquatch, bravo for a nicely expressed no vote (in your first post). Seriously, no sarcasm here. Well done. 

 

Everybody else: I agree with you (well, most of you), but can we stop now?

[Guest LarryP]

 but I would like to contribute to a clearer understanding of skepticism and science if I can.

 

OK, please elaborate?

[Guest Cervelo]

Based on the evidence in the continental US nope

Social construct, myth, urban legend, ect ect

Based on my personal experience

Maybe

[Old Dog]

Staff statement: I'm approving this topic for the time being; although, there is a huge potential for it to turn into a war zone between skeptics and proponents. If there is any civility issues whatsoever, I will close it. Carry on......

 

I actually don't see this as a topic for discussion, let alone a war zone.  Very few people would have their minds swayed, one way or the other, by another's opinion.  To engage in this as a topic of discussion is a practice in futility. 

[AaronD]

^^ That's great you see it that way, and if everyone did we'd have no problems. But, any time you propose a black and white topic then invite skeptics and proponents to answer--you have a huge potential for a non-civil war zone. I have been here putting out fires long enough to know what I'm talkin' about.

[Trogluddite]

I actually don't see this as a topic for discussion, let alone a war zone.  Very few people would have their minds swayed, one way or the other, by another's opinion.  To engage in this as a topic of discussion is a practice in futility. 

I also expected this to be a dry well of conversation for similar (I think) reasons - the question is a faulty premise. 

 

"It's a question most in the bigfoot community don't even bother to debate, it's just unequivocally assumed that they do exist."

 

This premises that the skeptics here are not part of the bigfoot community.  There seems to be a rather robust discussion about the existence of bigfoot in every thread.  And while a few individuals whose encounter was so close and unequivocal that they don't have to question the existence of bigfoot, I suspect that anyone who does believe in the existence of bigfoot has worked through their own wickets of logic to reach that conclusion. Its a mischaracterization (unintentional, of course) of their position to describe it as "unequivocally assum[ing]" that bigfoot exists.  

[Incorrigible1]

The possible existence of bigfoot is quite the conundrum. If they exist, they have to make a living. They have to forage, hunt, cultivate, or provide sustenance in some way. Such activity must leave evidence. That seems in short supply.

 

If bigfoot exists, they must be subject to the occasional fatal accident or succumb to spontaneous medical emergencies, such as massive heart attacks. Yet no body has been discovered and recovered.

 

Hundreds, perhaps thousands of credible sighting accounts have been made, over the years. Can all those reports be mistaken identity? Not every report can be taken seriously, as many are frivolous, perhaps mischievous, or made by persons of suspect motives or character.

 

Ultimately, I conclude the existence of bigfoot is barely possible. I eagerly anticipate the day ultimate proof is plopped down upon Professor Meldrum's desk.

[Sunflower]

YES!!!!!! 

[Guest guillaume]

 but I would like to contribute to a clearer understanding of skepticism and science if I can.

 

OK, please elaborate?

 

For example, let's consider the question of the value of bigfoot sightings as evidence for the existence of bigfoot.  One can reasonably see this as a matter that falls within the domain of science.  We're talking about whether something exists or not in objective reality, and questions like this are exactly what science was invented for.

 

On the other hand, subjective experience is what we live for.  We also, sometimes regrettably, invent things to please ourselves, because we can.  Life is complicated, emotions are complicated, but science tries to be objective--it's the whole point of it, and science is hard to ignore because it's led to things that have made all our lives ridiculously comfortable and easy in the modern world.

 

Cutting to the chase, anecdotes may convince one subjectively of something even if science rejects those anecdotes as worthless.  This is a simple fact and not really debatable: anecdotes are not useful as evidence within the domain of science.  It's also a simple fact that science isn't everything.  We are doomed to be as emotional as we are logical... it's the curse of being human.

 

And so where does that leave us?  Skeptics and believers are talking past each other rather than to each other.  And I think we can do better.

[Guest WesT]

I was only mildly interested in the subject up until a few years ago. Long story short, I went out to see for myself. I don't know for an absolute fact the creature in question exists. But what I did find was incredible and most puzzling. I can say, without a doubt, that there is a something out there that goes through great lengths to conceal it's presence and impact on the environment. What that something is I don't know. I learned alot from my experience, but the source of the knowledge I gained remains unknown.

[MIB]

And so where does that leave us?  Skeptics and believers are talking past each other rather than to each other.  And I think we can do better.

 

That's a fair question.   Both sides are entrenched.  Neither side offers proof the other will accept.  It's impossible to prove non-existence so the naysayers will never be able to put anything on the table other than to say it hasn't been proven YET.   As a proponent, I have to say its obvious we haven't provided proof the naysayers accept though we may accept it ourselves.  Stalemate. 

 

I don't see any change in the discussion coming until something in the situation changes dramatically.   I'm not necessarily certain I want the change, sometimes status quo, though not satisfying, is the best available.  That's a personal value judgment.

 

MIB

Edited December 14, 2013 by MIB

[SWWASAS]

Perhaps a better question is why would a die hard skeptic be a member of this website if they already "know" that bigfoot does not exist. Seems much to me like an atheist on a religious website. JMHO

[Guest WesT]

I don't see any change in the discussion coming until something in the situation changes dramatically.   I'm not necessarily certain I want the change, sometimes status quo, though not satisfying, is the best available.  That's a personal value judgment.

 

MIB

Even though I don't know for a fact it exists, I did push it to the limit. And now I find myself exactly where you are now, and reluctent to persue it any further.

Edited December 14, 2013 by WesT

[Guest]

The only questions that need be asked are "does bigfoot exist?" and "how can we find one?".

 

If we continue to speculate exclusively about trivial matters, we will never prove they exist.

 

It's fine to take interest in other aspects of the field (every researcher does), but the main question behind this mystery is does it exist or doesn't it. That's why bigfoot is as big of a cultural phenomenon as it is, because of the mystery of not knowing whether it's real or fake.

[hiflier]

Hello SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT,

 

Perhaps a better question is why would a die hard skeptic be a member of this website if they already "know" that bigfoot does not exist. Seems much to me like an atheist on a religious website. JMHO

 

Actually that question is not for here. In fact it would be off-topic. The topic is "Does Bigfoot Exist". I don't see any issues with anyone answering that question. It's not a question that requires any dialogue. That's why I said what I said in post #9. I actually answered the OP's question posed in the thread title via my reply in post #7.

Edited December 14, 2013 by hiflier