Concerning The Ongoing Debate Over Skeptic /scofftic/denialist Participation On The Bff And Proving Bigfoot's Existence

[hiflier]

Hello MIB,

 

There's no wrath here. Just pointing out that using Bigfoot skeptic to mean an opponent is a misuse of terms and is imprecise. A bigfoot skeptic is someone who is skeptical of Bigfoot or skeptical of the evidence. Not opposed. Just questioning. The term Bigfoot skeptic onlt serves to narrow the skeptical field to the subject of Bigfoot. That's the accurate definition. The term Bigfoot therefore is only used as a qualifier, not to shift skeptics into an opponent camp. As DWA says- easy peasy (chucles)

 

@ DWA,

 

You're correct. And in the general sense that's is what defines a skeptic no matter what the field. Add in the qualifier "Bigfoot" and you've simply narrowed the skeptical field to Bigfootery. A Bigfoot skeptic is skeptical of Bigfoot being real as well as questions the veracity of the evidence. So, not opposed, just well....skeptical.Easy Peasy.

Edited August 29, 2015 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Hello All,

For the sake of clarity: Bigfoot Proponent, Bigfoot Skeptic, Bigfoot Opponent. There....Easy Peasy

[Rockape]

 

To the rest of the world a bigfoot skeptic is someone simply doesn't believe in bigfoot or think bigfoot exists.

 

I've never thought of a skeptic to be a total non-believer. I've always thought of it as someone who has doubt in mind, but doesn't outright reject it. The possibility is left open- some people being more optimistic than others. Being skeptical is just being cautious and not taking things at face value- especially in a field where the history has been plagued with hoaxing and liars.

 

Then there's the scofftic or denialist- the downright rejection of any possibility. Some are more cynical about it than others.

 

Some people on the forum don't see the distinction between any of the above, or don't want to. It's a 'with us or against us' attitude. I don't know how many times I've been called a scofftic even though I've demonstrated for years that I'm open to existence.

 

 

And I've been accused of being a government disinformation agent.

 

 

 

 

The Oxford definition of skeptic

 

- noun : A person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinion

 

 

I'd say there are some here who don't question but instead make statements. They also have no doubt that bigfoot doesn't exist.

 

Therefore if they are not questioning and also have no doubt they are not a skeptic. That would make them a denialist. The Oxford definition of denialist...

 

noun : a person who does not acknowledge the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence; a denier.

 

There really isn't any scientific evidence that bigfoot/sasquatch exists no matter what anyone says except perhaps a select few that might show an unknown species.  However there is plenty of historical evidence, I think even the most ardent denialist wouldn't argue that.

 

So I'm not sure exactly where that would put most of the folks that would be called denialists. Scientifically no confirmed evidence but historically a lot of evidence.

 

There is another version of the Oxford definition for skeptic...

 

Philosophy : An ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere.

 

So I think that would cover the modern philosophers here and elsewhere who think it's crazy to believe in bigfoot.

 

 

I'm not sure where that leaves me. I think it's crazy to believe in bigfoot too but I do it anyway. I think it's possible they existed in the past but are now extinct, possibly the near past but have always been very rare creatures with a small population. It's possible a few could still exist in isolated pockets but I don't believe they are abundant nor that they are anything but a flesh and blood creature like everything else on this earth.

 

I think it's highly unlikely that bigfoot/sasquatch exists but I still like reading the stories, watching the videos and commenting on them. I've been as guilty of anyone of being a smart-eleck at times so I'm going to try to do a better job of staying on topic and not being a problem but we don't want rules here that will ruin the spontaneity of a conversation, everyone just needs to remember if you are going off topic self-police and either take it to pm's or start a thread on what you are discussing.

 

All I can really gather from those definitions as to what a skeptic is seems overall vague enough that many here are by definition a skeptic.

 

Denialist would only apply to a few. I'd say if you are of a mind that there is no worthy reason to discuss bigfoot/sasquatch you are a denialist.

 

If you are of a mind that bigfoot/sasquatch is worthy of serious discussion but overall doubt it's existence you would be a skeptic.

 

Maybe we can all start wearing badges identifying how we believe. I consider myself a skeptic so I covered that side. I'll let a believer handle the other side.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Rockape

[Guest WesT]

Let's not leave out the 2 types of knowers. The ones that have seen for themselves with their own eye's, and the ones who know for a fact (somehow) its all a bunch of hooey.

[MikeZimmer]

....

 

There is another version of the Oxford definition for skeptic...

 

Philosophy : An ancient or modern philosopher who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even rational belief, in some sphere.

 

....

 

 

Well, for another view, from a philosopher,  there is a thread here: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/52042-bigfoot-casts-a-philosophical-shadow/#entry922996

 

In short, the philosopher, Sherrilyn Roush, thinks that what some of the Sasquatch researchers are doing is far from crazy, and in fact is a very good thing.

 

" ... Sherrilyn Roush, left, an associate professor of philosophy, considers the similarities between Bigfoot and meteorites - and the difference between science and philosophy - at the Hearst Museum's Bigfoot display, which includes text she wrote for the exhibit. (Deborah Stalford photos) - Bigfoot casts a philosophical shadow"

 

article at http://www.berkeley....7_bigfoot.shtml

[hiflier]

Hello Rockape,

 

That was good. And for me it goes a bit deeper too. To clarify to goes to the point of whether or not I trust the accounts given by the knowers. If I trust them as speaking truthfully then where does that leave me? More of a proponent because I think knowers are honest? Perhaps yes. The opponent camp just might have a few deeper issues when denying existence for lack of proof then? It may extend to a deeper mistrust that people can be truthful which flies in the face of their non-belief because physical proof is missing.

 

To each their own on this matter but it would seem that the issues of belief or non-belief-or even skepticism- are outward signs of questioning the integrities of those who tells the Forum they saw a Sasquatch. It's a dynamic that doesn't really get brought up all that much anymore since the habituators have moved to their own domain. As a Human it is my wish to first trust other Humans and what they say. It is in my normal follow up of doubt that keeps me a skeptic of Bigfoot, and therefore a Bigfoot skeptic and a questioner of just how much of the pile of evidence should I include if any in the decision making process. If I trust what the knowers relate to me then I don't really need the evidence. It really is coming down to that deeper issue. 

[Guest]

'Maybe we can all start wearing badges identifying how we believe.'

 

Not sure if you were being serious but I like that idea, maybe an option by our avatars. That is if everyone agrees on what the terms actually mean.

 

I think it would help newbies to know our personal stances.

[Old Dog]

'Maybe we can all start wearing badges identifying how we believe.'

 

Not sure if you were being serious but I like that idea, maybe an option by our avatars. That is if everyone agrees on what the terms actually mean.

 

I think it would help newbies to know our personal stances.

 

Having a calm, logical and intelligent conversation with someone would do the same.  Who needs labels ?  A label does nothing but enable prejudging of a person.  A quick and concise conversation will let you know all you need to know about a persons leanings here.  There are way too many varying degrees to easily put a label on people in these forums.  You have extremes on both ends of the spectrum, but most people fit somewhere in the middle.  It doesn't take long to spot the ones on the extremes.  Once spotted, one can deal with them accordingly.

[MIB]

I would need a bunch of badges.   Some I wear all the time.  Some I'd only wear when some particular comment ... from either side ... roused my ire. 

 

The accuracy of our badges would only be as good as the strength of our delusion.

 

MIB

Edited August 29, 2015 by MIB

[SWWASAS]

The famous movie quote comes to mind:    "Badges, Badges, we don't need no stinking badges!"

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

I think at this point the lean is toward the OP calling it. If the OP's thread drifts off topic to clarify a point or pursue a supporting subject or link then it's up to the OP to determine how far it goes. It doesn't have to be an existence debate. It's just that existence debates have historically been the worst and most common offenders for pulling the focus off of a thread's subject and causing it to move away from the OP.

 

Everyone goes off topic. It's natural to follow a thought outside the OP's scope. That kind of drift is usually short lived and easily absorbed. But I've seen existence debates begin on the first page of a topic and go unabated for several pages and have NOTHING to do with the original subject. Breaking the pattern somehow seems the only way to maintain a more focused flow on any given point of discussion. Other solutions are complicated and risk stifling broader thinking lines. My opinion only here because in practice it may be rough going for a while until examples of how it could work are put into play.

Edited August 29, 2015 by hiflier

[Old Dog]

LOL, one forum I'm on uses an area that they vanquish off topic remarks and threads to.  They call it "The Grease Pit".  It isn't deleted, but it is sent to a forum death room, left there to languish and die a natural death.

[Guest]

Hallo Nakani,Another question if I may and I will apologize ahead for being blunt. Also this isn't a trick question a trap or an "I gotcha" because it's something I honestly would like to know. Do you think that Bigfoot exists. If not do you think there is any possibility that it could exist. And I'll be up front here. I'm asking because I want to know what your position is when you engage with someone on the matter of evidence or even if you think there is such a thing as evidence- especially if your stance is one in which you are adamant about non-existence.I don't think members actually ask these kinds of questions and maybe you've never been asked these questions directly but I don't think it's a bad thing to do IMO. At least it's honest and isn't an ambush.

Hello, sorry for the late reply, my wife shot a moose on her way to town yesterday and I had a lot of groceries to deal with.

I'm gonna have to say no, I don't think Bigfoot exists. It's not a conclusion I wanted to arrive at. I would love to have my mind changed, like I said before,that is a big part of my participation here, I want to see some evidence that I can't explain away.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I want to see some evidence that I can't explain away.

 

What's your opinion of the PGF?

[Guest]

OFF TOPIC! ! Reported! !

Just kidding. Ask me again in the existence debate thread.