Rockape Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 No. The sad part is that the skeptic doesn't understand that to boldly assert that something is the case which one cannot prove...is irrational. Don't call them skeptics, they are not, they are scofftics/denialists. And the true believers do the same thing. 4
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 What I see now is, really, all I need to, thanks. So this is how science works then?
Guest Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Not everyone thinks humans should ''Find Bigfoot'', so, everything is going along just fine! Falcon Project -crassshhhhh!! oh, thank you!! Really, not showin' anyone my BF vid when I gets it.
Guest DWA Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Don't call them skeptics, they are not, they are scofftics/denialists. And the true believers do the same thing. As I frequently say about this: neither extreme is doing the field a bit of good. Anything that isn't going on evidence isn't science; and to confirm an animal you are gonna need science. So this is how science works then? We have been very patiently explaining how science works here. Listening at any point would be cool. How science works: 1) Everyone who has my level of exposure to - and thought about - the evidence, or more, comes down positively on the animal. 2) No one who pronounces negatively has ever - EVER - demonstrated proper attention to the evidence. THAT is how science works. When people make statements about stuff, you can tell, pretty quickly, whether they are read up on it, if you are. Sounds like science's take on Sassy. No. It's scientists' take on Sassy; and can be better expressed as: Science says, unequivocally, to the people who are actually applying it here: Animal's real. You might want to classify it now. This is why Schultz ain't a scientist. He's just a pretty well qualified techie...who shouldn't get out of that box to do cutting-edge science. Edited June 4, 2015 by DWA
Guest Crowlogic Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 As I frequently say about this: neither extreme is doing the field a bit of good. Anything that isn't going on evidence isn't science; and to confirm an animal you are gonna need science. We have been very patiently explaining how science works here. Listening at any point would be cool. How science works: 1) Everyone who has my level of exposure to - and thought about - the evidence, or more, comes down positively on the animal. 2) No one who pronounces negatively has ever - EVER - demonstrated proper attention to the evidence. THAT is how science works. When people make statements about stuff, you can tell, pretty quickly, whether they are read up on it, if you are. No. It's scientists' take on Sassy; and can be better expressed as: Science says, unequivocally, to the people who are actually applying it here: Animal's real. You might want to classify it now. This is why Schultz ain't a scientist. He's just a pretty well qualified techie...who shouldn't get out of that box to do cutting-edge science. Whether you know it or not you tipped your hand that you are not so interested in the whole picture. You've eluded to this before and essentially have cherry picked that which serves where you hope to be going with your pursuit. However the entire picture is what is required to perform proper science. The hoaxes and hoaxers need to be studied as much as the so called proper evidence. Unlike from what I've garnered from your posts I have considered both sides of the issue. By not looking into both sides there can be no valid conclusion to anything. The bottom line still remains that the weight of bigfoot history as we know it is one based in fraud at it's worst, poor science in most of it's operation and an overblown optimism that the weights I list somehow don't apply to it. As a former proponent I've stood in your position and I know the scenery but you do not stand in my position so I don't expect you to appreciate the scenery of where I am now. I know what it feels like to believe but you don't know what it feels like to disbelieve.
Guest DWA Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 There's a good answer to your post and here it is: No. Without due consideration of the evidence there is no consideration of anything. Here, let me highlight a sentence for you: 2) No one who pronounces negatively has ever - EVER - demonstrated proper attention to the evidence. How many times, guy? What you say tells me all I need to know. This is not about "feelings."
MarkGlasgow Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 I hope Squatchy earned a few hearty backslaps from his critical thinking buddies for this piece of genius. Any sharper and I swear that guy would cut himself to ribbons.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Closing one's mind to any evidence and complaining about the lack of proof isn't my idea of critical thinking. I learned a while ago that many of these so-called "skeptics" were once credulous believers who pulled themselves out of the state that they were in and now hate seeing the same sort of thing in other people. Seeing people blindly believe in Bigfoot like how they once did just drives them nuts. It's not about actual research and science for these people; it's about belief.
Doc Holliday Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Lol, woodslore, I'm liking the piney yeti squatch . +d . Don't call them skeptics, they are not, they are scofftics/denialists. And the true believers do the same thing. and +d as well for truth. it would seem both sides tend to be their own worse enemy sometimes. Edited June 5, 2015 by Doc Holliday
Rockape Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I hope Squatchy earned a few hearty backslaps from his critical thinking buddies for this piece of genius. Any sharper and I swear that guy would cut himself to ribbons. I'm sure there is a method to his madness. I have no idea what that is however.
guyzonthropus Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Strikes me as pretty darn convienient, that phrase that its too bad skeptics cant prove a negative.....is it just me, or is that a parallel to that which he objects to, specifically, explinations as to why something cannot be confirmed or proven...as a matter of fact, that statement is indeed the ultimate example of that, and the ideal base for those who cannot support their critiques of others "Well, i demand, from those who believe/know, that which, by definition, i cannot provide" seems like a pretty safe armchair to work from....is it comfy too?
Guest DWA Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Right. That's it, and that is all that it is. People don't seem to get that any thesis in a scientific discussion must be backed by evidence. It will not do and never has done for anyone claiming a scientific bone in his or her body to sit with folded hands, responding to every request for their evidence with "nuh-uh, YOU have to prove it, not me." That is wrong. Here is another thing that people don't seem to understand: that sasquatch is real is what everyone in the scientific community calls "settled science." It's a shame most of them don't recognize it, but that makes it no less true.
Guest DWA Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Put up or get out... I've already offered to pay for Sesquac memberships BF didn't bring me chocolate on Valentine's Day, Time for us skeptics to step aside and let the Footies show us how it's done. Find a Bigfoot. One simple task. Well, actually, wrong. Since it is obvious to all assembled that you need sasquatch proven ten years ago, it's time for *you* to show *us* how it's done. Although you are a bit late. As I just said, sasquatch is proven. That most people don't know that puts it right with many other scientific discoveries that didn't get acknowledged for a long time. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn, nothing new.
ShadowBorn Posted June 5, 2015 Moderator Posted June 5, 2015 I'm sure there is a method to his madness. I have no idea what that is however. Yes ! proving they exist on your own with out trying to prove them.
Recommended Posts