So. What Happens When Sasquatch Is Proven, And We All Know The Skeptics Were Wrong All Along?

[Guest DWA]

While we're in the realm of pointless hypotheticals, 

 

((And this is all hypothetical))

 

Bob Gimlin passes away.  Among his estate is a sealed envelope which is not to be opened until 10 years after his death.  The executor of his estate places the letter in a safe deposit box in a bank in Seattle.  The years pass.  The night before the 10th anniversary of his death, the Cascadia subduction zone finally gives away, creating a tsunami that devastates Seattle and leaves no trace of the bank.  What will the proponents say then?

 

Wait a minute.  That doesn't work.

 

10 years after his death, the executor opens the envelope. Inside is a short, notarized statement that reads, "Sorry, folks, it was Bob in the suit.  The suit's over at Al's place."  

 

What will the proponents say then?  

You're lyin', Bob.  And I know it.

 

The power of critical thinking.  The power of evidence.

 

(There won't be a suit.  No one will be found who can fit in it if there is.)

Edited August 7, 2015 by DWA

[Trogluddite]

If Bob were to recant his witness report ever it would have been years ago .....

Right, I get that. But the thread asks what people would do if a hypothetical event (Bigfoot is unequivocally proven beyond any question) were to occur.  I'm just asking what would happen if the reverse hypothetical event were to happen.  

 

... it would not matter.    I saw what I saw, both times, and Bob wasn't there.  .....

And reports like yours are why I'm just over the edge in the believer camp.  I really doubt that anyone would take the trouble to lie about a visual encounter and then repeatedly lie about it in an effort to perpetuate the lie for no apparent reason.  And while the hypothetical blowing up of a cherished "proof of Bigfoot" event wouldn't impact you, it would have an impact on others who haven't seen one w/their own two eyes. 

Edited August 7, 2015 by Trogluddite

[Guest DWA]

I'd really start wondering about the skeptics as soon as I applied my mind to what kind of world would have to exist for all this to be a fabrication...something the skeptics never consider.

 

(And any rejoinders to this will show it.)

[SWWASAS]

We have people on this forum that do not believe Meldrum about anomalies in a footprint cast, not only do they think it not a BF, but it has to be a human wearing a boot under a costume. PHD has no meaning to someone that "knows" what they cannot know. So when the proverbial BF is on a lab table, those same people will question the credentials of those that examine and classified it as sasquatch too. I can just hear the questions. Where did they get their degree? How much have they published? Have they ever been wrong before? We have heard the same questions about Meldrum. They will not go away quietly with their tail between their legs. They will not believe the story, the ability of those that did the examination, and those who reported it to the media. To them a small group of scientists will just be another type of witness to bash and disbelieve. Hard to change someone's mind when they "know" something does not exist and they have beaten the drum of denial for years. For heavens sake, to accept existence would make them look silly!

Edited August 7, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest DWA]

I care not about your degree.  I care about how you are applying it to the topic.

 

JustCurious gave us this.  I'm scattering it about like seeds:  http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/02/21/tribal-skepticism/

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The truth is that self-identified skeptics are not so terribly good at critical or scientific thinking. ...Remember as well that most skeptics are not scientists, but (at best) science enthusiasts. The social danger Sagan warned about is not merely that we may be impolite, but that we may express certainty that goes beyond the evidence, or beyond our own command of the evidence. Science-y language and the unearned pretension of scientific authority — pseudoscience, in short — may be used as a cudgel by those selling science just as easily as by those selling homeopathy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You'll hear bigfoot skeptics say a lot about critical and scientific thinking.  But they are relying on the credentials of people whose thinking they have not examined.

 

(Loxton's position on sasquatch evidence is...unfortunate.  Um...not for sasquatch, I might add.  But he shows himself on the subject more open than most, more so in fact than many proponents.)

 

That second embedded link?  Read that too.  Loxton may be a skeptic on bigfoot  (and reads the evidence wrong).  But it's hard to tar him with "bigfoot skeptic."

Edited August 7, 2015 by DWA

[SWWASAS]

Each and everyone on the fence that wants to know for themselves do not have to wait for science. Get out in the field in an active area and look for yourself. No guarantees but most that spend the time and sweat equity eventually will have enough experience to make up their own mind. You could spend decades and never have an experience but might just be one of those lucky ones that have it right out of the gate. If anything, you will be out in nature, getting good healthy exercise, and see things you have never seen before. The answer to your personal question about existence is not in any movie, data base or thousands of reports; it is out in the field waiting to be found. Go out and try to find out for yourself.

[Guest DWA]

Well, actually, the people in the field are *doing* the science.  They essentially *are* the science...and the scientists.

 

Loxton himself says in the second link in my last post that skeptics are always bound to defer to scientific consensus.  But he also says that "Where scientific domain expertise and consensus exist, but also a denier movement or pseudoscientific fringe, skeptics [my emphasis] can finally roll up their sleeves and get to work."

 

He never mentions sasquatch in those articles (although Nessie does come up as one of ^^^these topics).  But actually one could say that sasquatch *is* one of ^^^these topics.  The consensus (not driven by expertise, for damsure) is that sasquatch isn't real.  There is a denier movement, and there is a pseudoscientific fringe (most of which is the denier movement, which oversteps its bounds in just the way Loxton cautions against).  The skeptics here are sasquatch field researchers.  The denier movement is driven by mainstream scientists.

 

So here, skeptics are doing what Loxton says to do, and rolling up their sleeves and getting to work.  Like Meldrum and Krantz...you and I and many another here are Loxton's skeptics...which are true skeptics.

Challenging unsubstantiated assumptions is critical to any truly enlightened exercise of skepticism.

[beerhunter]

Perhaps we'd all learn if killing a BF is animal cruelty or homicide!

[SWWASAS]

Well Meldrum claims a sighting now. What does that make him? I would not think that would be a Loxton skeptic.

Good point beerhunter. The shooter will not know the answer to that question until the specimen on the lab table gets back DNA results. Either way they better be lawyered up.

Edited August 7, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest DWA]

Loxton is talking about true skepticism.  He has a problem applying it (his deferral to mainstream opinion - whatever that may be - isn't gonna fly, as scientific sasquatch proponents know well); but basically his head's in the right place on what skepticism is.

 

No matter whether pro or no on the bigfoot question, a skeptic is a person who challenges assertions and assumptions.  Meldrum is a skeptic, as Loxton defines it; he is challenging the mainstream-driven denier movement, and he is doing it with evidence.  Krantz was too; Bindernagel too; etc.  As we've gone over many times, I don't consider bigfoot skeptics true skeptics, why I drop the two-word dismisser on them.  They simply go with people who haven't thought about this.  Loxton cautions against sounding science-y - and siding with people who do - while not understanding or applying science properly.

[Bodhi]

Well Meldrum claims a sighting now. What does that make him? I would not think that would be a Loxton skeptic.

Good point beerhunter. The shooter will not know the answer to that question until the specimen on the lab table gets back DNA results. Either way they better be lawyered up.

Meldrum claims a sighting? Are you talking about the one he had with Standing, at night when he had to leave almost immediately after something walked past the front of a vehicle? Is that sighting of which you are thinking?

[Guest]

What happens when sasquatch is proven? Well quite obviously the dismissers will slink off with their tails between their legs, won't say a word and we'll never hear from them again. They'll then turn to some other subject to poke fun at.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Neanderfoot

[southernyahoo]

Each and everyone on the fence that wants to know for themselves do not have to wait for science. Get out in the field in an active area and look for yourself. No guarantees but most that spend the time and sweat equity eventually will have enough experience to make up their own mind. You could spend decades and never have an experience but might just be one of those lucky ones that have it right out of the gate. If anything, you will be out in nature, getting good healthy exercise, and see things you have never seen before. The answer to your personal question about existence is not in any movie, data base or thousands of reports; it is out in the field waiting to be found. Go out and try to find out for yourself.

 

I couldn't say that better. I've always accepted that if I wanted evidence that would convince me, badgering others to bring it to me wasn't the way. The hands on approach is far more empirical.

[norseman]

I couldn't say that better. I've always accepted that if I wanted evidence that would convince me, badgering others to bring it to me wasn't the way. The hands on approach is far more empirical.

Agreed you guys. I think regardless of someones position being in the great outdoors is the best medicine.

[SWWASAS]

Meldrum claims a sighting? Are you talking about the one he had with Standing, at night when he had to leave almost immediately after something walked past the front of a vehicle? Is that sighting of which you are thinking?

It was in a camp situation and I do not recall a vehicle was involved. It was night and Standing was there so I am not sure it would pass my sniff test either. But never the less Meldrum seems to believe it was authentic. Personally I would not believe any encounter if Standing was present and picked the field location, which probably surprises you.

Edited August 8, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT