Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 That's interesting. I wonder if there is a precedent for people not accepting an established principle?
Sasfooty Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 I have no idea. "Science" probably already knows a lot more than it is saying about it's "library of knowledge". They tend to not talk about things that they can't explain. Makes them look incompetent. Grant money could dry up.
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 In my defense I don't think I'm trolling at all. To the contrary I think this is the very nature of the sasquatch discussion. That is of course, barring us having an actual sasquatch. If we can discuss the ramifications of the Ketchum paper in regards to how the sasquatch falls on the tree of life, why can't we discuss how that revelation would effect those who hold a personal belief that goes against said revelation? In my mind this is no different than the gigantopithecus vs hominid debate, with the only difference being the injection of a hypothetical discovery. "Science" probably already knows a lot more than it is saying about it's "library of knowledge". If I understand what you're saying you would rely on an assumption of conspiracy ("They know they're telepathic but just won't tell us") to justify why the discovered species possessed no non-established biological traits. Is that a fair assessment of your belief?
Sasfooty Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 "I would just think they were either lying about what they found or they found an abnormal one". Do I need to put this on my sig line so you can see it every time?
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 I just want to be fair in my representation of your stance. Since the second part of your statement (the abnormal one) would be a fallacy in the given scenario (that the sasquatch is established and studied on par with the current known great apes, meaning there's more than one) that only leaves the first part of your statement to work with (the lying part).
Sasfooty Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 "Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't." Mark Twain
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 Exactly! So if the truth were that the sasquatch were discovered, and were found to possess no traits outside those known to science (i.e. an established truth), what would be left but the obligation of fiction?
Guest Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 I'm a flesh-and-blood type of guy. I suppose I do believe in some phenomenon that some would consider paranormal, but none are sasquatch related. I think that any of Sasquatch's unusual (in comparison to other primates) features - if they exist - would be biological in nature. Infrasound and eye-shine are good examples. Perhaps unusual in comparison to humans, but not biology in general. I believe that most people professing that sasquatch exhibits paranormal abilities believe those things based on personal experiences. Finding/dissected a sasquatch and proving that it is a "normal" creature would not persuade a paranormal believer because you have done nothing to explain away the experiences that the belief is based on. As Sasfooty stated (I think most paranormal believers would agree with her) - such a body would be an abnormal creature or simply a different species.
Sasfooty Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 That wouldn't be the truth. Are you living under the illusion that "science" has never lied to us before? I believe that most people professing that sasquatch exhibits paranormal abilities believe those things based on personal experiences. That is exactly right, Shadow Angel!!
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 Are you living under the illusion that "science" has never lied to us before? I'm not here to debate science. I'm here to posit a hypothesis. Sasquatch is discovered and studied and found to be no greater or special than any currently known primate. How does that effect the person who attributes paranormal powers to the sasquatch? I think you've already presented your answer but if you have more to add please feel free to do so.
Doc Holliday Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 since its sort of been brought up......where would you cut a specimen to see the telepathy fall out?? back to the op, i suspect as with a lot of things in life, some people might not accept anything that didn't "jive" with their preconceived personal opinion, no matter what.(sound familiar?) that seems to be part of human nature,regardless of the subject matter, imo.
Sasfooty Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 Well, I guess that's that, then. Maybe somebody else will come along to tell you whatever it is that you want to hear.
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 I believe that most people professing that sasquatch exhibits paranormal abilities believe those things based on personal experiences. /color] That is true, but there are also those who have claimed an interaction with a sasquatch completely lacking in any paranormal attributes. IMHO neither requires a dogmatic adherence to principle. As a witness myself I believe what I saw was real, but if someone were to come forward and show me how they hoaxed me I wouldn't refuse to accept that I was hoaxed. Maybe somebody else will come along to tell you whatever it is that you want to hear. The only thing I want to hear is personal opinion. Thank you for presenting yours. Again, if there's anything that you'd like to add please feel free to do so.
Recommended Posts