Guest DWA Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 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. No anti-smoker like a reformed chimney. Their problem is that they don't understand that the proponents' case is based on science...and theirs isn't. They focus on the opposite fringe and as you say, ignore the science.
ShadowBorn Posted June 5, 2015 Moderator Posted June 5, 2015 . 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. No, cause they are not blind people who believe in Bigfoot. Belief come only after you have had a sighting that you just cannot explain that science will understand.
guyzonthropus Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Isnt "belief" the realm of those who have yet to see one, yet find the evidences convincing/compelling? Those who have seen them would be amongst the"knowers"wouldnt they?
Guest DWA Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 I don't like the word "belief" in any sense when it comes to science, at least not beyond "I believe that the evidence says this, and here's why." From what I read about people who have had sightings, I am a lot more certain than a lot of them are. The evidence is why.
gigantor Posted June 5, 2015 Admin Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) Real skeptics have an open mind and realize that while the circumstantial evidence is not enough, it is suggestive and worthy of continued study. I'm a skeptic and go out looking for signs of existence. Only a fool without regard for the scientific method would close his/her mind and declare the matter settled. Then there is the armchair skeptic... Edited June 5, 2015 by gigantor 1
roguefooter Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Their problem is that they don't understand that the proponents' case is based on science...and theirs isn't. They focus on the opposite fringe and as you say, ignore the science. What science did you use when you proposed the April Fool's joke to be real? You were so sure of it based on your formulae, that you refused to believe it was a joke.
Guest DWA Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 You didn't even read any of the posts I made on that thread. Did you. Go back and do that, I'll wait. The scoftical mind, revealed. But thanks for that. BTW. If you do indeed want to know the *correct* way to think about this - including why the "scientists" who put that bad joke up really aren't - only read *my* posts. Don't pollute your head with the other stuff. Nope, I responded to that one in a precisely correct, scientific way; and anyone who disagrees is just showing why he's constantly upset about what's going on here...while some of us *know.*
Guest DWA Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Real skeptics have an open mind and realize that while the circumstantial evidence is not enough, it is suggestive and worthy of continued study. I'm a skeptic and go out looking for signs of existence. Only a fool without regard for the scientific method would close his/her mind and declare the matter settled. Then there is the armchair skeptic... No matter what one's level of exposure to this, the only rational response is: what's the fuss all about? and find out. OK, there's one other one. Those nuts. And on to something else, please. 'Cos what you are doing otherwise is unhealthy there, mate.
Guest DWA Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 There was a certain saskeptic here who generally scoffed, and said - as most do about this - lots of unsupportable things. But I will say this for him: he admitted to spending lots of time combing streambeds for teeth and bones. His mouth might frequently have said the wrong things. But his mind was staying engaged. (anyone heard from him lately?)
roguefooter Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 (edited) You didn't even read any of the posts I made on that thread. Did you. Go back and do that, I'll wait. The scoftical mind, revealed. But thanks for that. BTW. If you do indeed want to know the *correct* way to think about this - including why the "scientists" who put that bad joke up really aren't - only read *my* posts. Don't pollute your head with the other stuff. Nope, I responded to that one in a precisely correct, scientific way; and anyone who disagrees is just showing why he's constantly upset about what's going on here...while some of us *know.* I read your posts on that thread. The only ones that matter are the first few, that ones that showed your belief and confidence on why it was all real. After the hoax was exposed you spent all your time trying to backtrack out of being duped. You blamed the scientists, you blamed skeptics, you blamed everybody except the guy who got duped. Had that report not been revealed as a hoax, it would have become a part of the evidence that you continuously preach about being of great importance. With such a thin line separating evidence from a hoax, what good is any of it? Edited June 5, 2015 by roguefooter
Guest DWA Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 Yep, see, I knew it. This is one of the cool things that comes of listening to the people who aren't paying attention, particularly that sentence that starts "Had that report..." Assumptions; presumptions; "people do x;" "you would have done y" like you know that; "eyewitnesses are unreliable" as if that's true; stating things as true for which one has no evidence...for you guys, the lack of fun never stops, does it. I meant it. Go back and read the thread. No one else really needs to bother. I refer you back to my last post on this...which other than this one is my last post on this. Here is what "settled science" means: all available evidence supports the conclusion; none contradicts it. Which is why those idiots aren't scientists. The existence of sasquatch is settled science. And they don't know it. I wish more people knew how fresh the air feels at science's cutting edge. That's the coolest thing about this field: no degree required, just the ability to think about things a bit more thoroughly than a bunch of people who are wasting their degrees. And their time. Not to worry, though. I do feel sorry for ya, rogue, did want to make sure you knew that.
roguefooter Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 ^So you're trying to claim that all available evidence supports the conclusion that Bigfoot is real? Even with so many instances being hoaxed like all of Biscardi's evidence, Ivan Marx' evidence, Ray Wallace's, Dyer's, SO's, etc., etc., etc.? How about the highly questionable evidence by Standing or Freeman? What about the misidentifications like the Jacobs bear and the Skookum cast? How about the DNA studies like those done by Ketchum? That's a good chunk of 'Bigfoot evidence' right there. Yet you want to claim it all supports existence?
Guest diana swampbooger Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 ^So you're trying to claim that all available evidence supports the conclusion that Bigfoot is real? Even with so many instances being hoaxed like all of Biscardi's evidence, Ivan Marx' evidence, Ray Wallace's, Dyer's, SO's, etc., etc., etc.? How about the highly questionable evidence by Standing or Freeman? What about the misidentifications like the Jacobs bear and the Skookum cast? How about the DNA studies like those done by Ketchum? That's a good chunk of 'Bigfoot evidence' right there. Yet you want to claim it all supports existence? ok, so that's 1,2,3,4,...10..no, wait, let me count the etc etc etc that 13 out of 10,000! that's like zero. 000000000000000000000000.......000000000......000000000000013%...!!! yup, I'm convinced boogers don't exist zzzzzzzzzz
Guest DWA Posted June 5, 2015 Posted June 5, 2015 You know, Squatchy, while we're on the bold new approach to research, more of us have to understand what is a scientist...and what is not. Here is a scientist talking about what science is. Good science is always open-minded, and the history of science is one of surprises and overturnings. Science is nothing but careful thinking, and careful thinking encouraging an appreciation of the complexity of the world. The complexity encourages us to maintain several possibilities at once. In a single lifetime, we may have no way to remove the ambiguities from these possibilities. A scientist may tend to favour one story over the others, but will always be careful to concede uncertainty and maintain a willingness to change the balance with new, incoming information. - David Eagleman, neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, "Why I am a ‘possibilian’," New Scientist, 25/09/10.) Thanks for the opp, Squatchy! This has turned out pretty cool. Let's parse that paragraph. Good science is always open-minded. Really. How open-minded do the "skeptics" here sound to you? ...and the history of science is one of surprises and overturnings. And isn't that one happening again. Those of us who have actually thought about this won't be surprised a bit. Those who haven't...will never get over it. They'll try to take cover and pretend they've been there all along. For those of us who know different: they're gonna have a hard time talking to us. Science is nothing but careful thinking, and careful thinking encouraging an appreciation of the complexity of the world. Here is what separates scientists from techies, and people clinging to belief from people following science. Note what the man says: "careful thinking." He didn't say "equations you can't understand;" he didn't say "I have six degrees;" he didn't say "they're all from Harvard and MIT." He said: careful thinking. No skeptic can show the careful thinking that went into his stance, or say anything about the careful thinking of the people who hollowly agree with him. That is because none of them are doing it. If you aren't a careful thinker: you aren't a scientist. If you cling to canon and can't open your mind to possibilities: you aren't a scientist. If you think anything is settled ...but you can't say why...you aren't a scientist. If you are a careful thinker, open to possibilities, and only follow evidence...YOU ARE ONE. Degree not even required. The faster our society comes around to understanding this, the faster science will advance. Paying Attention Only To Degrees has severely retarded scientific advance since the first. Most of the Degreed, when they get outside the narrow furrows of their specialties, show themselves up as, well, not scientists, but techies. I could keep going. But I've already provided you with enough to understand everything that guy - that *scientist* - is saying. ^So you're trying to claim that all available evidence supports the conclusion that Bigfoot is real? No, stating a fact. Even with so many instances being hoaxed like all of Biscardi's evidence, Ivan Marx' evidence, Ray Wallace's, Dyer's, SO's, etc., etc., etc.? Do people faking real stuff mean the real stuff isn't real? Wow, take that one for a walk. I'll wait up...and I'm really hoping I don't have to wait more than ten minutes. How about the highly questionable evidence by Standing or Freeman? Who? You don't know what the word "sideshow" means, do you? In science, sideshows do nature's job of filling a vacuum. Scientists could fill that vacuum...but they choose not to, with certain exceptions we are fortunate enough to listen to. Some of us, anyway. What about the misidentifications like the Jacobs bear and the Skookum cast? The what? The Skookum cast was left by a sasquatch. You don't know how much you're telegraphing your need to read up. I don't know what the Jacobs photos represent; neither do you...and neither does anyone else. How about the DNA studies like those done by Ketchum? Who cares? That's a good chunk of 'Bigfoot evidence' right there. No it is not. It is not bigfoot evidence. You aren't too good at this. Are you. Yet you want to claim it all supports existence? None of it does. You might want to avert your gaze from the bright shiny baubles. Science is work. I expect zero from people who don't do it. Careful thinking. What the man said. Whenever you're ready.
ShadowBorn Posted June 5, 2015 Moderator Posted June 5, 2015 Isnt "belief" the realm of those who have yet to see one, yet find the evidences convincing/compelling? Those who have seen them would be amongst the"knowers"wouldnt they? No , Belief is not the realm of those who have yet to see one. It comes after one has seen one, only then does it become belief. Evidence is not going to make a believer of anyone since evidence only shows that some thing occurred. You I hate the title of knower, proponent of which I did like, or even a romantic. There have been so many names given to those/us who have seen them and many arguments. Only because the reporting of these creatures were not clear or proper documentation was not taken down. You cannot tell people what these creatures are about or how they operate with us on the net. You have to keep things low key or hoaxers will use this info. Been hoaxed three or four times and I do not like it ,by people reading these threads. Whether they hoped that I would mess up with posting the hoax only to be laughed at later. No more tricks and now I do things so that I am not hoaxed.
Recommended Posts