dmaker Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Do you honestly believe that only " crazy, drugged people" are subject to hallucinations, paraedolia, mistakes in human perception, etc? These are very common things that happen to very normal people all the time. You wish to make them appear like mouth foaming lunatics because you believe it helps your cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Whereas Bigfoot sightings are in the thousands, people experiencing hallucinations are in the millions. An incredibly large percentage of those are completely normal, rational people. Hallucination does not equal crazy. Although it seems that you wish to promote that as a truth. Why is that? You seem ultra-defensive whenever I bring up hallucinations, in fact, your overzealous labeling of anyone who has a hallucination as 'crazy' or 'drugged' is quite troubling to me. It's as though you have an agenda to make people who associated a hallucination with a Bigfoot sighting afraid to admit they had a hallucination, otherwise they will be called 'crazy' or 'drugged'. When in reality, you can experience a hallucination with a perfectly normal mind. Truck drivers with families, and a consistent job record have often reported hallucinations while driving, often due to boredom or lack of sleep, they are not crazy or drugged however. Why do you insist on labeling these normal people with your scare-words? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 I think my take-away on this question, from many who have responded, has to be: My success is defined by how often I engage in circular arguments with those that oppose me. Well....guess I'll be moving on then. I've promised not to judge, and I won't, but... really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 " I've promised not to judge, and I won't, but... really?" Yeah, but you just sort of did, didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 Judging in equal measures, on both sides of the argument? Guilty, yes. I think there comes a time when we ALL seriously need to address what we think we are trying to accomplish here, and if that is a worthwhile goal. But hey, if we all want to double-down on our respective strategies, so be it. I choose to involve myself in those kinds of tail-chasing adventures less and less each day and I think the quality of the overall content of the board drops signifcantly when we do that. Just me. Here, I had just hoped to open up a more, well... philosophical and non-academic approach to the discussion and I see I've failed pretty dramatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the parkie Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) I can't show all of them are that, what I am trying to do, is show that if some sightings definitely have other explanations, will you ever revise your thinking. I can show some Bigfoot sightings are the result of X. I can show some Bigfoot sightngs are the result of Y. I can show some Bigfoot sightings are the result of X caused by Y. You can show zero Bigfoot sightings are the result of Bigfoot. I don't think there would be much point to this Drew. Firstly you will not be able to show to some others satisfaction that some sightings are the result of whatever. Secondly if you did, it would not necessarily apply to any other sightings. Thirdly, you will not revise some people's way of thinking no matter what. Fourthly, you are on an internet forum - there will never be any proofs here. I commend you trying to be proactive in order to try to win an argument, but really, what's the point? Here, I had just hoped to open up a more, well... philosophical and non-academic approach to the discussion and I see I've failed pretty dramatically. I think this was a good idea for a thread and there have been some interesting replies. Unfortunately every thread is eventually taken over by person A endlessly insisting that sasquatch exist no matter what and then person B constantly deriding everything person A says, and neither ever seems to want to stop. You have your answer regarding persons A and B but then you knew it anyway. Don't take it personally or get disheartened. Edited January 28, 2014 by the parkie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee2go Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 WSA, I don't think you have failed with this discussion. As I said before, I am fairly new to the this board. I don't have time to read all of the topic postings so I don't mind that people cover a broad range in their discussions on any topic. Others may feel differently if they have heard it all before. I am not a skeptic, I am still learning about this topic and I want to understand both sides. I think that by hearing both sides I have achieved that success even though it may have gotten off track from what you originally intended. Those who are passionate either pro or con (and there are both here) are bound to create a confrontational atmosphere. It wouldn't be a good discussion without it sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I don't think there would be much point to this Drew. Firstly you will not be able to show to some others satisfaction that some sightings are the result of whatever. Secondly if you did, it would not necessarily apply to any other sightings. Thirdly, you will not revise some people's way of thinking no matter what. Fourthly, you are on an internet forum - there will never be any proofs here. I commend you trying to be proactive in order to try to win an argument, but really, what's the point? The point is, that the thread asked what my goal is. If I can convince one person that they are not mentally disturbed, simply because they hallucinated a gorilla like creature, and don't have to delude themselves into believing that a Giant Hairy Man-Ape lives on the periphery of semi-rural America, in order to rationalize the misconception that a hallucination = mental problems, then I have achieved my goal. There is a point. Some people who have witnessed a tree stump that looks gorilla like, and didn't want to admit they were tricked by their brain, rationalize the sighting by searching for others like them. They are afraid to admit their brain tricked them, and see Bigfoot as a ready made excuse for this human frailty. Why admit you had a hallucination, when you can just go along with the Bigfoot story? Hopefully someone will be able to realize this, and stop their paranoia about the Bigfoot phenomenon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Hey WSA, didn't you mean "academic"? I think things here get pretty non-academic. We've discussed this. Sooner or later in a scientific discussion, the folks who aren't on board with looking at the evidence aren't on board. Here, though, well, it is what it is. There will always be a limit to how far an effort to look at this utterly objectively can go. Edited January 28, 2014 by DWA 3 B; 4 B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Are you claiming to be objective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 I'm really surprised that anyone is proffering the "Some, therefore all" logic fallacy. Textbook after textbook that I recall usually makes the point in the first chapter that even though something is true some of the time, it is not necessarily true all of the time. I'll refer you back to my Schroedinger's cat analogy. When you examine a certain location and determine how many bigfoot are in it, you've got a snapshot for that time and space. Change the time or change the space and you've got to re-verify. I admire that some folks are adamantly defending their belief systems, but it makes me nervous when they jump up and down claiming that their belief is truth when they can't prove it without attempting to use tortured logic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 And here we go. But Drew, it is the difference between saying what your goals are and actually promoting them. We have plenty of space for doing the promoting...I was just hoping to give space to just the former. GUess the market wants just the promtion part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) I'm really surprised that anyone is proffering the "Some, therefore all" logic fallacy. Textbook after textbook that I recall usually makes the point in the first chapter that even though something is true some of the time, it is not necessarily true all of the time. I'll refer you back to my Schroedinger's cat analogy. When you examine a certain location and determine how many bigfoot are in it, you've got a snapshot for that time and space. Change the time or change the space and you've got to re-verify. I admire that some folks are adamantly defending their belief systems, but it makes me nervous when they jump up and down claiming that their belief is truth when they can't prove it without attempting to use tortured logic. It has occurred to me that some of the things you're saying - and some others besides - might be topics for their own threads, as WSA did here, in order to get a handle on what skeptics are thinking about them. But that may be just me. Edited January 28, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the parkie Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 The point is, that the thread asked what my goal is. If I can convince one person that they are not mentally disturbed, simply because they hallucinated a gorilla like creature, and don't have to delude themselves into believing that a Giant Hairy Man-Ape lives on the periphery of semi-rural America, in order to rationalize the misconception that a hallucination = mental problems, then I have achieved my goal. Well, you've posted on the forum over 2000 times now and, I assume from the way that you worded the above, have still not achieved your goal. I agree with you that some people who think that they have genuinely seen a Sasquatch are mistaken. Where do you think you have gone wrong thus far in not managing to convince a single person that they merely experienced an everyday hallucination and have been deluding themselves ever since? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I'm really surprised that anyone is proffering the "Some, therefore all" logic fallacy. Textbook after textbook that I recall usually makes the point in the first chapter that even though something is true some of the time, it is not necessarily true all of the time. I'll refer you back to my Schroedinger's cat analogy. When you examine a certain location and determine how many bigfoot are in it, you've got a snapshot for that time and space. Change the time or change the space and you've got to re-verify. I admire that some folks are adamantly defending their belief systems, but it makes me nervous when they jump up and down claiming that their belief is truth when they can't prove it without attempting to use tortured logic. No one is though. If some are the result of X, then not all are the result of X. Please demonstrate where it was said otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts