Jump to content

What's The Deal With Skeptics?


MNskeptic
 Share

Recommended Posts

"I think most of us here are skeptible at times. I don't believe all reports I've read to really be Bigfoot. Who does? What I do question is statistically, what is the chance that every Bigfoot report from the beginning of time is false? That's what drives me to believe there is really some creature out there that is scientifically documented. We humans don't like our world view messed with. We as a species are a bit arrogant in that way."

 

 

What about Little People and Fairies?   Thousands of sightings and reports.  Nobody can prove them all false, does that mean they must exist?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does if you believe that there is congruency in multiple eyewitness encounters like some here do. (Note that some here believe they can tell the truth of a witness report just by reading it - no investigation required.) Bigfootery is becoming ever more similar to business in general - buzzwords replace rational thought. It makes a weird sort of sense when you understand that many actually do make money off the subject.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP your unbelief is your own business: leave it there, lest ye find what you're looking for and so bring disaster upon yourself. Stay home and stay safe: says the one who has stared into the pupils of monsters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Divergent1

As I always say, pseudoskepticism leads to pseudo-intelligence. Some people need to feel assured that the world works like clockwork and everything fits in neat little categories. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP your unbelief is your own business: leave it there, lest ye find what you're looking for and so bring disaster upon yourself. Stay home and stay safe: says the one who has stared into the pupils of monsters.

Do tell...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever I have seen it, extreme close-mindedness stems from the following, and I mean without exception:

 

1.  Ignorance of the evidence;

 

2.  Ignorance of relevant related subject matter.

 

That's it.

 

I'm not even sure how anyone truly cognizant of the evidence could be skeptical for any reason other than plain incredulity, which simply doesn't cut it in science.  And no skeptic has challenged that yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is easy. There is no proof of the existence  of Bigfoots. Nothing to study or discect. No real evidence . No fossil record .No body on a slab. They are everywhere, but nowhere.

 

I did forget

 

3.  Confusion of evidence and proof and what the two terms mean.  ^^This says nothing about the reality; it just speaks to what we accept, which has nothing to do with what exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thousands of reports I've read are all true. I know this from the thousands of reports of which I've read.

 

I've had the same experience with reading reports, so that would be confirmation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about Little People and Fairies?   Thousands of sightings and reports.  Nobody can prove them all false, does that mean they must exist?  

I keep wondering where the databases for all these reports are, when I'm going to be shown them.

 

THERE AREN'T ANY.  STOP.

It does if you believe that there is congruency in multiple eyewitness encounters like some here do. (Note that some here believe they can tell the truth of a witness report just by reading it - no investigation required.) Bigfootery is becoming ever more similar to business in general - buzzwords replace rational thought. It makes a weird sort of sense when you understand that many actually do make money off the subject.

This is where the not-paying-attention comes in.

 

Were it not for scientists following congruency in multiple inconclusive reports consistent on key particulars, well, there'd be no science.

 

But again, as I've said, we see the inability to understand how to review, or deal with, evidence, and the insistence on magically producing proof from nothing.

 

Never have I seen in any field anywhere the sheer quantity - pretty much 100% of their 'argument' - of talking past reality that I see from bigfoot skeptics.

Edited by DWA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't expect anyone to be so open-minded that their brains have fallen out. We should all have some level of skepticism and critical thinking within us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dmaker, the floor is yours. I'm off to get the popcorn.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand....

 

From the Rules and Guidelines:

 

Skeptics welcome! Assuming you don't come in with preconceived and immovable notions regarding Bigfoot and those who discuss the phenomenon, ....

FIVE DIFFERENT FLAVORS of popcorn for me.  Twenty bushels of each.

I don't expect anyone to be so open-minded that their brains have fallen out. We should all have some level of skepticism and critical thinking within us.

If bigfoot skepticism could get that up to, you know, basic warm-body level, this could be an interesting discussion.

Look, part of me is skeptical about the big guy. I have to be for the sake of my sanity, not having seen the creature myself. Call me a Doubting Thomas. However, the greater part of me believes that something is out there, after considering the evidence that exists. While there is no smoking gun, there is a lot of evidence that points to the fact that this creature may exist. Again, forgive me, for unlike some on this forum, and most everyone else in the world, I have not myself seen this thing. At least, I am open to the possibility of BF and willing to consider any and all information that would convince the skeptical side of me once and for all.

Here's what is so maddening. Why are most other skeptics, doubters, and non-believers so closed off to the possibility that BF may exist? What drives them to dismiss ALL evidence, however thought provoking or compelling, without so much as a shred of objective consideration? They don't give the possibility of BF existence or any of the evidence a second of their time. Their energy is invariably spent denying, diverting, and diminishing any notion of the big guy. What are they protecting so strongly? Why can they not open their minds to the evidence? There is some strong psychological defenses going on in most people that I find very fascinating...and even more frustrating.

So, what's the deal with skeptics? Why the extreme close-mindedness?

MNSkeptic

 

To a number of you who have responded:  ^^^^This is the OP.  Just a reminder.  Answers eagerly awaited.  Not expected, mind...

Because that is how science works. Look at the story of Gene Shoemaker, the geologist who first proposed that Earth had a long history of being bombarded by meteors. It took him several decades and lots of scientific evidence to 'convince' his peers.

 

Look up the story of the Channeled Scablands in Washington. Geologists had long believed that it took millions of years for them to be developed. But J. Harlen Bretz was the first geologist to suggest they were created by a megaflood that was occurred when a huge ice dam burst that was located in Glacial Lake Montana. He was ridiculed for this idea. And as usual, it took years to convince his peers.

 

Then there are more modern, pioneering scientists such as Dr. Robert Schoch who believe that the Great Sphinx in Egypt is thousands of years older than what everyone else thinks, and is collecting evidence of that. He gets ridiculed by his peers but I actually think he is right.

 

My point is that this is how science works. You have to have evidence and even when you do, it still takes years, even decades, to get other scientists to agree. It's just humans being human.

 

I am not bothered that Bigfootdom still has skeptics. After all, nobody has clear evidence of one, a skeleton, or a live specimen. Just footprints and stories for the most part, peppered with hoaxers and skeptics.

 

Isn't it fun?

 

What you're saying is "you have to expect science to heap ridicule on people who are way ahead of it."

 

No you don't.  

 

What you are talking about here is scientific progress being delayed, for decades, by closed minds.  That is NOT science.  It's close-minded people who unfortunately call themselves 'scientists.'

 

This is what the OP is talking about:  people who flat refuse to consider any evidence that conflicts with their comfortable worldview.    Even when that is their job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the fairy reports I've read, I'm able to discern they're all truthful, and that science and disbelievers are hindering the identification of the species.

 

Any logical thinking person would arrive at the same conclusion I have, especially if they've read reports like the wind, as I've done.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep wondering where the databases for all these reports are, when I'm going to be shown them.

 

THERE AREN'T ANY.  STOP.

 

http://www.realfairies.net/forum/faery-encounters

 

These people are reporting them. People that report things on the Internet never lie--why would they?  Ergo faeries are real.   

 

They even have a research organization:  www.fro.net

Edited by dmaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...