MIB Posted January 26, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) What would provide "success" for a bf proponent? I can only speak for myself. I already "know" and have for nearly 40 years. In that sense, I achieved the sort of success you seem to allude to a very long time ago indeed. What motivates me is trying to understand those things I know. I suspect interaction is necessary for that. MIB Edited January 26, 2014 by MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee2go Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) Correct me if I'm wrong as I have not had the privilege of an experience, but I would say success to a proponent who has seen heard or found evidence of a bigfoot would be finding this sight and interacting with others who have the same experiences and/or beliefs. Edited January 26, 2014 by coffee2go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 27, 2014 Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 The thread has run course enough to turn it around. What would be "success" for a proponent? Physical evidence from a bigfoot body? Hmm, none substantiated. Personal observation/sighting? Personally gratifying, but again, unsubstantial. Sightings and $5 will get you a beer in most bars. Footprints? Interesting, but no cigar. What would provide "success" for a bf proponent? I think that is up to the participant (be they pro or con) to say, which is the p.o.v. I'm interested in here. We have a whole lot of back and forth traffic on this board telling each other what we think another should do, or what evidence we think the other needs to look at. This topic here is the place where we all just get to say what we are shooting for....no judgments, no accusations, no recriminations, no snark. Guilt and shame-free. There is likely to be a lack of agreement on goals and criteria for success. This is why they are called personal goals, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I can only speak for myself. I already "know" and have for nearly 40 years. In that sense, I achieved the sort of success you seem to allude to a very long time ago indeed. What motivates me is trying to understand those things I know. I suspect interaction is necessary for that. MIB Not exactly the same; but the evidence long ago convinced me that the skeptics don't have an explanation and we need one. (NO. Science Says! Unless you can prove it, or show that evidence points to it, as the proponents are doing, you have no explanation. Put another way: talk is cheap.) I'm rewarded by encountering other points of view, and thinking more about what I think, something that many could do much more than I see, when it comes strictly to this topic, now. There's a "personal goal" for ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 From today's conversation on other threads I have to chalk up two more wins, as in, wow, that's two more interesting things I know about this (Is there a better reason to spend time anywhere?): 1. Assumptions have killed more research than lack of money. 2. Denial may have killed as much research as assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 27, 2014 Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 Hey DWA..... I understand you definition of success, and share many of those, but if we make this into just another place to keep score, it becomes rather typical for this board. I was so hoping to avoid that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Well, yeah, I know, but sometimes l just see the same record making too many spins. And I guess that's it: seems to me that the goal of any place/group that's focused on finding the answers is...well, finding the answers, and I see too many who have their own 'answers' for this particular place to move in that direction (and you and I have talked about that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) From today's conversation on other threads I have to chalk up two more wins, as in, wow, that's two more interesting things I know about this (Is there a better reason to spend time anywhere?): 1. Assumptions have killed more research than lack of money. 2. Denial may have killed as much research as assumptions. It's truly amazing how much you "know" about something that hasn't even been proven to exist. And this knowledge rests on a mountain of unconfirmed evidence. Truly remarkable. Did you also add bioluminescent eyes to your catalog of bigfoot knowledge? Matt Moneymaker stated it as a fact a week or so ago. Edited January 27, 2014 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted January 27, 2014 Author Share Posted January 27, 2014 You two guys really can't help yourselves, can you? <Sigh> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 From a truly objective perspective this is a Schroedinger's cat situation. In a certain place at a certain time there is and is not a bigfoot (the most null hypothesis, since a skeptic can't prove bigfoot does not exist and I can not prove to a skeptic that I have stood face to face with one - to state that bigfoot do not exist as the perceived null hypothesis reveals a foundational bias). The truth isn't known until you put eyes on the spot to determine if there is or is not a bigfoot there at that time. Even then you only know the truth at that spot at that time. Change the location or change the time and you've got to check all over again. Beware those who claim to see everything, yet observe nothing. They reveal the difference between capability and competency. Bad analogy. Cats exist. Bigfeets do not. When you start a comparison with at a certain time there is and is not a bigfoot, you fail right away. There is never a bigfoot. Not in any place at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 All I am's a regular and now I'm getting blamed for the rest of the clientele. [sigh] Can't win... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Scientifically no one can prove that Bigfoot do not exist and any objective scientist knows that. The contention that they do not exist is simply a biased and unsubstantiated belief, nothing more. No matter how strong one's skeptical belief system may be and no matter how fervently one asserts that their belief system is real, it remains nothing more than a belief system. An objective skeptic, recognizing that it is impossible to prove that bigfoot do not exist, must acknowledge that bigfoot might exist, therefore the Schroedinger's cat analysis is entirely appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 ^^^Simple enough. Success might be defined as incorporating such basics into one's system of sifting evidence. (Sorry, WSA, but ...well, stuff.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Scientifically no one can prove that Bigfoot do not exist and any objective scientist knows that. The contention that they do not exist is simply a biased and unsubstantiated belief, nothing more. No matter how strong one's skeptical belief system may be and no matter how fervently one asserts that their belief system is real, it remains nothing more than a belief system. An objective skeptic, recognizing that it is impossible to prove that bigfoot do not exist, must acknowledge that bigfoot might exist, therefore the Schroedinger's cat analysis is entirely appropriate. Must one acknowledge that every outrageous contention could possibly be true even in the absence of any evidence to prove it? For example, I must acknowledge that there might be a giant teapot floating in space? Just because I cannot prove that there isn't? That is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) As a proponent, my goal has always been to gain enough knowledge to understand what it is that I saw and why they behave the way they do. As far as the other members of the community, I have met a bunch of fellow students that I enjoy associating with. Edited January 28, 2014 by indiefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts