What's The Deal With Skeptics?

[Guest Darrell]

 Or can someone who gives credence to the possiblility never be a skeptic?

Well for me, I should stop using the term skeptic to describe my views on the subject. I dont believe at all, and nothing less than a live or dead specimen will convince me other wise at this point. So cynic probably isnt a good description either. However, I do enjoy the circus and this forum and many of its members provide me with a little entertainment from time to time. Really, the silliness is quite entertaining.  

 Nice to know, but if you would answer the questions posed that would be rad!

Is the above answer ok?

[JustCurious]

MNSkeptic, in your first post, it seems that you're questioning the interactions here on the forum(s), but later you specifically mention family and friends reactions to attempts to discuss bigfoot evidence.  I think there are two very different possible explanations to each scenario, but I'm just going to go with the family/friends reactions. 

 

I had the same problem with family years ago.  Any attempt to discuss actual reports were met with "ah, that's just people high on something, people from the city who don't know a bear from a billy goat...etc."  I quickly realized those were conversations of unequal footing - I had knowledge of what others were reporting or investigating, while my family members didn't. Since in their opinion bigfoot was akin to fairies and unicorns, they had no interest in learning more either.  As soon as family members saw some show on TV they suddenly opened up to the possibility that maybe there was something out there.  I guess 'if you see it on TV or in the newspaper', it must be true for them.  But I did get excited that maybe now we could have a conversation, but I was wrong.  My family members and I were still on unequal footing.  I guess that's why there are forums where you can go talk to others with like interests...

[Guest]

What's The Deal With Skeptics?

Sounds like it should be a Seinfeld bit..

 

"Hey, what's the deal with Skeptics?

Are they truly Skeptical or are they just uninformed?

And why are they uninformed?

Because they did not read up on any actual BF Reports?

And why didn't they read?

Maybe they can't read.

Maybe they never learned to read.

People who can't read are often thought of as being unintelligent.

So if Skeptics are unintelligent, why call them Skeptics?

Why not just call them what they are: Dummies"

 

thank you, thank you...bows to the crowd, I'm here all week...

[Wingman1]

I most definitely take the word of the scientists that are actively trying to solve this mystery

over any hardcore skeptic any day of the week. If you don't believe, fine then just move on

along. You have said your piece. I and many other others like me have no problem with 

honest skeptics that are trying to help in a constructive manner. All and all, It is really simple,

the BF mystery will not be solved by the back and forth arguments on this forum no matter

how bad anyone wants it to. For those that have lost their passion after decades of searching

to no avail, need to realize that others have not.I for one will never let my beliefs be jaded

by what goes on in a web forum. There is no hurry folks, and there is nothing that can counter

that position with any certainty. Many out there believe that there is no evidence at all, and

others that believe what we have is incredibly weak.That is certainly your prerogative.

Whether you wish to believe it or not there are scientists out there, and they are actively trying

to solve this mystery. Much of the evidence collected to date falls in the "Trace" category, and

many will dismiss it off hand, but for those that analyze the data, and compare it against evidence

already in hand soon realize that it can't be ignored. To this day I am still amazed that sightings

are treated as nothing more than stories. It should be obvious that sightings reports are not

and will never be proof. They are the first piece of the puzzle. They are what helps determine a

course of action. There are most definitely many fake reports, and many reports that can be

explained away as mis-identifications, or just not have enough information to arrive at any type of

conclusion. There are however many that cannot be ignored and will provide the impetus for further

investigation. The researchers that are armed with this information and get out in the field are the

ones that will ultimately crack this case!

[SWWASAS]

If so many of you are done with this why are you still here? The disbelievers arguments against existence will never change a witnesses mind on what they experienced. Your arguments will always be the same but with each passing day, more and more people become witnesses. It is a tide that arguments against cannot stop. While "Finding Bigfoot" has not found anything, it sure has made people step forward and make witness reports. Sooner or later some Senator or other high Government official will have an encounter and start asking questions. What does the Government know? If the Government does not know, why not?

I don't agree with Wingman that there is no hurry. We have no idea if the BF population is stable or in rapid decline. For the sake of science I would rather BF existence be accepted when there is a living population to study than find a skeleton or fossil 100 years after they go extinct. For me the biggest mysteries are not that they exist but how they live, how they survive, do they migrate, how well they see in the dark, are they on the human evolutionary tree, how they use infrasound, and how they can avoid human contact so well? Most of these things requires a living population to determine. A fossil or skeleton will not tell much.

Edited October 16, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[WSA]

Your points are well taken Randy, I think.  I certainly have had my moments of entertainment with some of our more prolific skeptics here. It is the business I'm in though, and it helps to keep the blade sharp. Really and truly though, it is fish in a rainbarrel most days around here. I do get tired or rainbarrel fish at times, and have to poke somebody. Guilty pleasures....  A few of them like to do the same, so you know they know what some of us are all about here.

 

I would just suggest though that this is not just for the sake of circular academic exercises that get recycled endlessly....and there sure does seem to be a lot of that around here at times. I would immodestly propose that we who are relentless about addressing the evidence on an objective level have history on our side, and it is a good fight. Those on the "con" side are fighting a rear-guard and uphill battle, and I think on some level they know that very well. When I see one of them squeal, I think to myself, "Uh-huh."  

 

Your point about species preservation might very well be true, but aside from that possibility, I've got all the time in the world (until they issue me a marble slab hat that is).    

[Guest Divergent1]

Maybe we should be more skeptical of people and their interpretation of the situation both pro and con. If bigfoot exists, he exists without our opinions affecting his species' existence one way or the other.

[SWWASAS]

It is a good exercise and learning experience on BFF should I ever decide to publish. I have a good idea of what the arguments against evidence will be. I suppose I have lived a sheltered life because of my background in that I am used to have my word accepted at face value. My dealings with a skeptic neighbor should have prepared me better. I shared my first footprint find with him and his response was remarkable for someone that trusted me with his life flying with me a couple of times. He is one of those that will not accept it until science does. A school principal with a science teacher background. It seemed that his only options were to assume I am delusional, making it up, or incapable of even recognizing a footprint, human or otherwise. When I listed what seemed to be his options to explain it without allowing that it could be real, he suggested that it was a "natural formation" of some sort and not really a footprint. So I am incapable of even recognizing a footprint made by anything in patch of fresh clay mud? BF or human can be argued but to suggest I cannot recognize a footprint was pretty insulting. Interestingly and typical of what we see here, he did not even ask to see a picture of the footprint. He felt capable of making that judgment to support his belief, without looking at evidence (the picture). Our friendship pretty much ended that day. That ability to ignore evidence to support belief sure seems typical to some here. Since a skeptic cannot produce evidence, other than histories of hoaxing, to support their case, that is what they like to dwell on while rejecting all other evidence for a myriad of reasons. It is impossible to prove something does not exist, but they keep trying.

[Incorrigible1]

To the avid proponents: How can you not understand a person's doubt that a 600-lb giant apeman/creature walks the woods?

 

The onus is on you, and the meager evidence proffered thus far is hardly enough to sway the average citizen's mind that the unbelievable could exist. Your personal witnessing is not enough for most people (rightfully so, sez I), and like the old gal from the Wendy's commercial, they will ask "Where's the beef?"

[ohiobill]

Wingman - I can certainly understand your frustration but realize that you are looking at the same field as the skeptics are but in a different light. It's obvious that you understand and value the contributions that science can and has made to the field. I admire the contributions made as well and I would ask you to consider the matter from a skeptical standpoint to see how much we agree rather than how much we differ. 

 

We are conducting experiments at this point. We're already past the point of proposing a hypothesis. We have evidence collected and studied for some experiments but others are at a standstill for lack of evidence. For example, Dr. Sykes was able to test his hypothesis with samples sent in from around the world. Dr. Disotell has tested scat and mosquitoes collected by researchers for DNA. Dr. Fahrenbach and Dr. Meldrum have proposed hypotheses but have been unable to test due to lack of evidence. It doesn't mean that their ideas lack credence but it becomes increasingly apparent that something has to change in order to complete their experiments or they will wind up at a dead end. At this point in time all the hypotheses tested have resulted in dead ends or negative findings for both amateur and professional endeavors. I think all of us, skeptics and proponents, if we are honest can agree that this is where we are - science has and is seriously looking into the matter with the help of scores of volunteers and field researchers but can't make a definitive finding at this time due to lack of evidence. Bigfoot is possible but unproven. Would you agree that this is a fair assessment of where the field stands for both proponents and skeptics?

 

This is where the sides begin to differ, proponents continue to treat sighting reports as equally likely to be true and equally likely to produce testable evidence with obvious outliers that aren't included. Skeptics differ, they consider each report to be less likely to be true and less likely to produce evidence but should be willing to consider outliers that break the pattern. Would you agree?

 

Who's right? Statistically it's the skeptics at this point. Why? Consider each sighting report as the toss of a coin with heads being a positive result scientifically and tails being a negative result. So far no report has ever resulted in a positive result - all the tosses have come up tails. It never becomes technically impossible for this to be random but statistically there is no way it can be random. The more sightings or tosses the more certain we can be that it's not random and the more certain we can be that the next toss will be tails as well. There has to be a reason - maybe the coin is unbalanced (the reports aren't equal) or we use a tossing machine that flips the coin exactly the same each time and we always place the coin heads up (collection protocols or lack thereof). We probably all have different opinions of what the problems are but we shouldn't be arguing that there isn't a problem in considering sighting reports equal and pointing to them as a road map to success when every road they've led us down so far has failed or been a dead end.

 

If you admire the scientists involved at least consider how they approach problems and consider using their methods. At a dead end in research? Go over your work with a critical eye looking for flaws, change protocols, consider different experiments that could test your hypothesis. Do anything but continue to conduct business as usual and you are successfully applying the scientific method no matter what result your experiment brings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WSA]

I would differ only in your assessment that all the experiments have resulted in dead ends and negative findings Bill. If you define "failure" as the collection of a specimen which has been disclosed to the public at large, then yeah, sure. But plenty of people have made plenty of experimental findings....they just don't happen to be ones you might get excited to know about is all.  Some of us do find them exciting, so careful with that broad brush, hmm?       

[ohiobill]

Before accusing me of painting outside the lines at least fill me in on which hypotheses have been tested and proven? For example, I don't consider Dr. Fahrenbach or Dr. Meldrum to have failed in any way but they are at a dead end until they can test their hypotheses against a sample population. Their experiments remain incomplete and their hypotheses untested with no conclusions able to be drawn. 

[WSA]

Not proven to you Bill. Let's be clear. I get that, and you're entitled, but call it for what it is. There are those here who have had their hypotheses proven to their satisfaction. Lots. And lots of conclusions that have been shared with me too.They've not had those experimental findings accepted widely by others, and that is really what you're getting at, sure. Saying nobody here has had their theories proven to their own satisfaction is not so, and that is what I mean by lumping them in with your assessment is all.

Edited October 16, 2014 by WSA

[ohiobill]

The hypotheses of the scientists I used as examples have not been proven to anyone, including the scientists who proposed the theories. I specifically pointed to Dr. Disotell, Dr. Fahrenbach, Dr. Meldrum and Dr. Sykes as examples of why we all should admire a skeptical viewpoint and push for testing rather than relying on sighting reports. If you have a specific scientist or hypothesis in mind I'm more than willing to discuss it. I see no point discussing hypotheses that haven't been stated or tested, much less confirmed scientifically with those that have went through the process as though they are on equal footing. That's the whole point of science and a skeptical viewpoint - all theories aren't equal and it takes work and a skeptical outlook to succeed.  Pretending otherwise is why bigfootery has the problems it does.

[Guest]

Skeptics;   how much time do you spend in the field?   Who vetted you to evaluate evidence?    You don't even know what evidence I and others have, but since you reject all evidence anyway, you probably don't care.       How do you know that some scientist is not about to publish and silence you?   I eagerly await that day.        

Amen my friend, amen...May that day come soon. I too tire of the inquisitions and ridicule heaped on believers and/or witnesses.