Skeptics: Define Your Success For Us, Please.

[Guest]

This thread is so amusing to me. Especially the cynical skeptics, who, IMHO, don't really have the best hold on the subject of reality, which is what we, the believers and knowers, are supposed to not have, according to the skeptics. 

 

Anyway, carry on.

[Incorrigible1]

This thread is so amusing to me. Especially the cynical skeptics, who, IMHO, don't really have the best hold on the subject of reality, which is what we, the believers and knowers, are supposed to not have, according to the skeptics. 

 

Anyway, carry on.

Mr. Knower, whatta ya got to prove your belief?

 

Yeah, didn't think so. But do carry on.

[Guest]

Mr. Knower, whatta ya got to prove your belief?

Yeah, didn't think so. But do carry on.

Oh! Nothing to prove it, yet. But we're getting closer and closer everyday.

Mounds of evidence to support my and many others claims? Yep!

Edited January 18, 2014 by Austin M.

[Guest LarryP]

Mr. Knower, whatta ya got to prove your belief?

 

 

 

 

Maybe he's got the same proof as you've got regarding the huge Thunderbird.

 

I.E.- He knows what he saw.

 

On a personal level that's all the proof most people ever need.

 

Conversely, there are people who know what they've seen who still feel that they need to come up with proof of what they've seen to convince those who don't believe them.

 

I think what WSA is saying is that either stance is understandable, and I agree.

 

Personally, I've never had the slightest urge to try to provide physical proof of what I've seen and experienced to anyone.

Edited January 18, 2014 by LarryP

[Guest Cervelo]

Well back to WSA's original question......

Bigfoot is proven to exist, studied, poked, prodded, protected and every bit of the behavioral conjecture is proven wrong.....and I will declare victory over ignorance with this.....

Edited January 18, 2014 by Cervelo

[Guest DWA]

I'm not sure I have run across a more amusing human viewpoint than the one that insists upon proof from someone who has it and has no inclination to share with the narrow-minded.

 

(Who look how they react to every effort to talk to them about it.)

 

If yer in the same boat, and ya saw a big bird and ya got no proof for yer big bird, it's...well, it's triply amusing.  OK...so that's the most amusing human viewpoint I have run across.  Not sure what to take for that one.

The only thing I can adduce as an explanation is that they're trying to inflict the same suffering they perceive themselves as experiencing.

 

(I think all o' ya need to get over the persecution complex and laugh at skeptics.  YOU KNOW THEY'RE WRONG.)

[Guest DWA]

Well.

 

To get back on topic (I find myself doing this a lot around here):  just like WSA, I find three viewpoints, generally speaking, acceptable on this topic.

 

1.  You have heard since childhood that ghosts little green men and bigfoot aren't real; you haven't been inclined to read up a jot on evidence for any; and you don't really care that much and don't trouble yourself with it.

 

2.  You know that one of these things is real, from personal experience.  (Not getting into one's reaction to that when others question it.)

 

3.  You have evidence that these things might be real; and you're interested in any evidence anyone can provide that either substantiates or contradicts that.

 

Not sure why the 1.  would even be here.  And surprise!  they aren't.  They can't even have an objective relating to a site like this; they really don't care.

 

The 2.  want to substantiate and leaven their experience with those of others who have had the same.  Some of them want to fire back at skeptics.  I suspect that all the firing back I would do would be "Um, I've seen one, so you are very basically wrong."  But talking about something not considered real by the society when one knows for sure that it s real is a very legitimate reason to be here.  There might be other objectives such a person might have:  assembling search protocols; speculating what their experience might mean when measured against those of others; just campfire talking with the like minded.  The latter experience alone could fulfill their needs entirely.

 

The 3.  are pretty similar.  Speaking just for my own 3. I haven't read a thing here that would lead me to change my mind on the reality of the subject.  But I don't have proof of what exactly it is.  That can be significantly influenced - and has been - by reading about the experiences of those who have their proof.

 

If one fits in none of those categories - and "no proof so no bigfoot" is so very square peg in round hole - I still haven't seen the OP's question answered yet.

 

[edited to move pesky quote mark]

Edited January 18, 2014 by DWA

[Rockape]

This thread is so amusing to me. Especially the cynical skeptics, who, IMHO, don't really have the best hold on the subject of reality, which is what we, the believers and knowers, are supposed to not have, according to the skeptics. 

 

 

The "cynical skeptics" are the ones who have reality on their side, as reality is, there is no bona fide proof that BF exists.

I'm not sure I have run across a more amusing human viewpoint than the one that insists upon proof from someone who has it and has no inclination to share with the narrow-minded.

 

(Who look how they react to every effort to talk to them about it.)

 

A blurry photo or story of seeing a bigfoot is not proof.

[Guest DWA]

I could add a 4.  to the legitimate viewpoints:

 

4.  You're skeptical.  But interested.  You're looking for illumination as to what the evidence represents, because you honestly - as in you admit it - don't know what it represents.  But there's the possibility.  (I'm not going to say anything about some legitimate 4. here who tend to lambaste habituators, whom I just don't necessarily think owe me anything.)

I don't think "cynical skeptics" have reality on their side.  Ignoring evidence isn't dealing with reality.  I'd suspect a legitimate objective for a skeptic here is to start thinking more about the evidence, which the "no proof so no bigfoot" stance doesn't really allow.  But that requires an inherent interest in the topic as more than just a weird social phenomenon, which some here have simply made up their minds it is.

 

I disregard most video and photos as most do here.  I simply don't consider them to impact evidence one way or the other. I don't see the paucity of non-dismissable video or photo evidence as a problem; it is precisely what one should expect.  I'd consider a legitimate objective of any skeptic here to consider it enough to see why this is the case.  It certainly has been talked about here a lot.

[Incorrigible1]

You're the self-proclaimed scientist. Heh!

[Guest DWA]

And you saw a big bird that ain't real.  One of us must be wrong.  And I know which one a scientist would bet. 

(Oh,  And yes, my  previous post exemplifies the approach of the true scientist.  Thanks.)

You can contribute any time you're ready.  I mean, the OP asked you why you're here; and you're not fitting 1. through 4.  Shoot.

[Guest]

Interesting topic.

I’m skeptical that Bigfoot exists. I used to think it was probable that Bigfoot was a real animal unknown to science. But over the years I became suspicious of the Bigfoot story because it was one sided -- only the proponent side was being advanced in books, articles, and movies (later, skeptics began to reply in earnest.) My doubts increased when the Bigfoot narrative spread from the PNW to envelope virtually the entire U.S. Now, the same type stories of sightings and tracks are originating in places not like the plausible PNW with its vast remoteness and ruggedness, but in places I know, like Texas and Oklahoma. If it is very, very unlikely that troops of uncatalogued, anomalous giant apes live unverified in T. and O., yet sightings and tracks are made in these states, then such facts, to my mind, taint the “evidence†from the PNW because the evidence, so-called, is identical. If the evidence made in T. and O. is false, for all practical purposes the identical type of evidence in the PNW is likewise false.

So, why do I bother to post at BFF. Shouldn’t I just mind my own business and leave BFF to proponents? Sometimes I think I should. Any skeptic here knows of the slings and arrows, as well as the occasionally open distain that is generated against skeptical viewpoints. Sometimes, it’s not fun here. But --- the topic of Bigfoot IS fun, for me. My motivation is simple. I like mysteries. The Bigfoot story is a world-class mystery. Does Bigfoot really exist? Are they new apes or ancient humans? Is Bigfoot a hoax that created a new folk belief, or an old folklore that was advanced by hoaxes?

My end-game is to explain Bigfoot phenomenon without recourse to a “real†Bigfoot. In other words, if there is no Bigfoot, what explains the evidence put forth by proponents? I would like to “solve†at least some of the mystery, even if I know the mystery as a whole cannot be solved in every instance and that my explanations, needing only my own satisfaction, are tentative and not provable (but plausible, nonetheless.)

I’ll give two small examples of the fun I have looking into the Bigfoot puzzle.

Here is PNW artifact, a stone carving made by a First Nation person, said to represent the head of a sasquatch:

http://orhistory.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Carved-Stone-Heads.jpg

I wanted to find out more about it, so I procured a copy of the out of print MANLIKE MONSTERS ON TRIAL: Early Records and Modern Evidence, edited by Halpin and Ames, a scholarly book not unsympathetic to Bigfoot. Matter of fact, the picture above is from a plate in this book.

To be honest, the stone carving never looked like a representation of an ape to me. But in MANLIKE MONSTERS, anthropologist Roderick Sprague argues that the best explanation for its design is that is a replication of an ape’s head (i.e., a sasquatch.) However, Sprague gives some unwitting clues that point to a different, more plausible conclusion. He notes that he has oriented the neck-less image in order that it appears “flat-faced†(and more apelike), unlike the museum orientation that orients it in a more goat-like or sheep-like, long-faced position (the artifact is housed in the Maryhill Museum of Art in Washington State.)Sprague says he sees a prominent ape-like brow on the artifact, but admits that others familiar with it note the “brow†is really the curving horns of a mountain sheep (unfinished on the stone carving.) And Sprague notes that the Maryhill has another stone carving that unambiguously portrays a mountain sheep (although Sprague does not show us that carving.)

So, with this information in mind, I went through the catalog on-line at the Maryhill and I couldn’t find the “sasquatch†artifact. I did find, however, the mountain sheep artifact:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mharrsch/2374261134/in/set-72157607725827914/

To me, the “sasquatch head†carving looked more like this sheep head carving that an ape’s head. I was satisfied that this piece of “evidence†for Bigfoot was not really evidence for Bigfoot at all.

My second example didn’t take much research at all. Recently, Daniel Perez, in his BIGFOOT TIMES magazine, criticized the chapter on Bigfoot in ABOMINABLE SCIENCE by Loxton and Prothero and noted that Albert Ostman had an experience with a sasquatch family in 1924 in B.C., long before the events in British Columbia (Roe, Ruby Creek) were highly publicized in the 1950s (and gave birth to the modern Bigfoot legend,along with the Bluff Creek incident in California in the late 50s.) Perez was attempting to refute the idea that Ostman’s story was a tall tale reflecting the Roe account. Also recently, in a discussion here at BFF, one proponent argued with me in a similar fashion.

Here is the interesting part. Ostman’s story was told by him in reaction to Roe’s account! He wrote to Roe after Roe’s story was published, and later gave his story to the press. There is NO real evidence of Ostman having told his story previously, or having written up the account prior to the 50s, or of telling his family or his friends about his encounter, etc. His story seemed to come out of nowhere and conveniently endorsed Roe and was endorsed in turn by pro-Bigfoot writers.

Yet, Bigfoot proponents use a story originating in the 1950s as if it had originated in the 1920s.

As I said, I do have fun delving into the Bigfoot mystery. And often times, the mystery is not as it appears to be, if left unchecked.

So my "success" is incremental, and never final. But fulfilling nonetheless.

P.S. Here is Loxton's reply to Perez: http: http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/09/05/bigfoot-times-denounces-abominable-science/#more-24262

[Guest DWA]

And that's what 4.  sounds like.  Kudos, amigo.  I just want the explanation, whatever it is.  You have your leaning and I mine.  But the answer's what we both want; and you take a lot of time laying out what you think here.  Props for that.

[Guest]

And that's what 4.  sounds like.  Kudos, amigo.  I just want the explanation, whatever it is.  You have your leaning and I mine.  But the answer's what we both want; and you take a lot of time laying out what you think here.  Props for that.

Gracious, amigo.

[Guest]

I could add a 4. to the legitimate viewpoints:

4. You're skeptical. But interested. You're looking for illumination as to what the evidence represents, because you honestly - as in you admit it - don't know what it represents. But there's the possibility. (I'm not going to say anything about some legitimate 4. here who tend to lambaste habituators, whom I just don't necessarily think owe me anything.)

I don't think "cynical skeptics" have reality on their side. Ignoring evidence isn't dealing with reality. I'd suspect a legitimate objective for a skeptic here is to start thinking more about the evidence, which the "no proof so no bigfoot" stance doesn't really allow. But that requires an inherent interest in the topic as more than just a weird social phenomenon, which some here have simply made up their minds it is.

I disregard most video and photos as most do here. I simply don't consider them to impact evidence one way or the other. I don't see the paucity of non-dismissable video or photo evidence as a problem; it is precisely what one should expect. I'd consider a legitimate objective of any skeptic here to consider it enough to see why this is the case. It certainly has been talked about here a lot.

Bingo! +1