indiefoot Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 We know that you didn't convince me, therefore it's possible that you haven't anyone else. Isn't that the usual skeptical line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 It's possible, but I hope that I have helped some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 It is certainly possible. Once in a while I get an unsolicited email from a member expressing gratitude for my skeptical opinion sharing here. Whether that has had a lasting effect upon that persons view of the subject, I cannot say. I can, however, say that it was posts from members like Saskeptic here on the BFF that greatly helped me to adopt a more skeptical viewpoint on this topic. So it does work, I can assure you of that. I have seen others say the same thing ( particularly in regards to Saskeptic) about their experience here as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) A question towards the question in the title. Do skeptics have success at all, at/with anything? After all, by definition, nothing would be seem to be deemed valid enough with their doubting attitude? skep·tic [skep-tik] noun 1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. 2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others. Edited January 30, 2014 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 A lack of skepticism is what made Autumn Williams make a fool of herself. The lack of skepticism in this field is also why we have the crew of Finding Bigfoot to represent. It's why Melba Ketchum and Justin Smeja made headlines. It's why a panel of 'pros' presented Chewbacca pictures to the media. It's why Rick Dyer made national headlines twice, and it supports a host of other hoaxers every year. It's also why the media always laughs, while Bigfooters cry on national TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) ...and skepticism is why Bindernagel, Meldrum, and Krantz think sasquatch is real; and why a number of us are here. We "question the validity or and authenticity" of a non-thesis propounded by lazy people who don't want to rock any boats or consider evidence. Edited January 30, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 ^That's not driven by skepticism, that's driven by belief. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) ^^^No post you'll read here is driven more - 100% - by evidence. Because that is all I care about. When no scientist with a negative take on this topic gives a reason more sophisticated than i could hear from a random selection of cocktail-partiers, after an average of seven drinks apiece, that's evidence. When thousands of sightings are consistent across the whole spectrum of physiology and behavior, that's evidence. When trackways by the hundreds, found across the continent, show consistent features no one has demonstrated how to consistently fake, that's evidence. I could go on. And on. But I don't have to. Why? Evidence. I know what it is. And what it says. Edited January 30, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Every time a missing person gets televised in this country there are thousands of sightings of that person. When that person is found to be dead the whole time you realize those sightings equal thousands of misidentifications and hoaxes. Those people were confident enough with their sighting to report it. This behavior is consistent, and this field is certainly not exempt from typical human error. Edited January 30, 2014 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 There are motivations for those misidentifications and hoaxes. The most frequent one: somebody thought they could help, even though they weren't sure. Another good one: the perp or someone they knew tossed a red herring. Nobody's found a motivation I will buy for seeing something that isn't real and insisting on one's story for decades. I would never do it; no one I know would do it; no one they know would do it. And thousands of people aren't randomly constructing the natural history of a large temperate-zone omnivorous primate doing it, neither. Enough for me. I want to know what it is those people are seeing...but I have a sneakin' suspicion their consistent descriptions are telling us. What others want to believe with no evidence is up to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thermalman Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) A lack of skepticism is what made Autumn Williams make a fool of herself. The lack of skepticism in this field is also why we have the crew of Finding Bigfoot to represent. It's why Melba Ketchum and Justin Smeja made headlines. It's why a panel of 'pros' presented Chewbacca pictures to the media. It's why Rick Dyer made national headlines twice, and it supports a host of other hoaxers every year. It's also why the media always laughs, while Bigfooters cry on national TV. Agreed, that a hint of skepticism is healthy. Research and findings end up producing realism in the end. Edited January 30, 2014 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Speaking as a hopeful skeptic I go out hiking on occasion to see what I can see. Will I ever see a Bigfoot and prove my skepticism wrong? I don't know and I really don't care if I do. I enjoy hiking and it gets me out the house, so I consider that a 'win'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Well, you're one of many whose simple interest in the general subject matter - animals and the wild - brings them here. The 'win' is being able to talk about it with like-minded people. OK, and joust a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 The goal of anyone here should be the truth of the matter. Not opinions, but the truth. So, unless you have without question seen one with your own eyes, the truth is that you don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 ^ good discussion. Things should become clearer as more people 'know'. Whatever Bigfoot are (and whatever ghosts, aliens and ufos, etc. are exactly), it seems obvious that they are not "purely social constructs". As mentioned above; any witness to an unexplained occurrence or, anyone who knows and trusts someone who has, knows that many things are hitherto, unexplained. It has always been that way. It's interesting to me that there are only a few categories of such things that are unknown to the general public but which are reported consistently and with such regularity. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts