Sasfooty Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 Well said Jodie! The Forum had stagnated and the fastest way to rev it up is either discuss Woo-woo stuff or attempt to discredit Woo-woo stuff regarding Bigfoot. I agree that things have been a little stagnant around here lately, & this thread has been fun, whatever it's reason for being started. We could use a few more like it IMO.
southernyahoo Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 Good example. Now let's try and actually apply it to the OP. Sasquatch is discovered. Sasquatch doesn't smoke. Would there still be people posting YouTube videos on an Internet forum making claims that sasquatch do indeed smoke? There would be no way to know that all squatches don't smoke, therefore it couldn't be disproven.
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 Of course, some people will continue to believe what they want to believe. RayG I think that is true, but I also think it's possible that for some people it goes beyond want and into the realm of being a need. I guess that was a part of my original thought. Could a person's belief in a particular trait be so great that they would need to continue supporting it in the face of empirical data?
southernyahoo Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 We use to think chimps didn't use tools, the absence of emperical data, is still not evidence of absence.
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 23, 2011 Posted May 23, 2011 We use to think chimps didn't use tools, the absence of emperical data, is still not evidence of absence. We do however know that chimps can't bend time. That is unless you subscribe to the previously described belief system that the chimps are simply holding out on us.
southernyahoo Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 I wasn't talking about bending time, but if I saw a squatch walk into a heat wave and vanish where there should be no heat wave, then I'd be far more open to that aspect. Emperical experience is indispensible, and sometimes lacks a satisfactory explanation. It's not much different than how bigfoots could exist under our noses in the first place.
Guest Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 Who's to say a paranormal BF isn't the same as a F&B BF? Who's to say paranormal isn't normal? We call it paranormal because to our knowledge, it isn't normal. So even if a F&B BF is found, they may have attributes that aren't known to us. So in effect they would be F&B and paranormal at the same time. The declaring of paranormal is linked to knowledge. If we don't have knowledge of a certain thing, i'm sure it will be viewed as paranormal. We have to take into account the paranormal abilities even some everyday people have. If I tell you I've been shot by a gun but the bullet didn't penetrate my skin would that make me paranormal? If I tell you that in an emergency, I can move faster than usual and even dodge bullet would that make me paranormal? Or would it simply mean we can do things that we don't yet understand?
Guest TooRisky Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 In the spirit of hypotheticals I pose a simple question. Can the paranormal sasquatch be killed by the discovery of a normal sasquatch? By normal I mean an organism conforming to the known laws of biology as we understand them today. No infrasound. No shifting in and out of dimensions. No telepathy. No swiping smokes. No singing songs. Just a run of the mill primate. If such an animal were discovered would people espousing a paranormal entity refuse to accept the results? Would they proclaim a separate, as yet still undiscovered source for all their claimed phenomenon, or would they throw in the towel? When i moved out to the coast there was 2 people who said it did all this inter-dimentional traveling and such...They said they knew exactly where the portal was and promised to take me there... I called them out and offered a nice thick steak in trade for the info on the sight and still to this day they will not come up with even directions... To me it is all bunk, but I will keep an open mind but dont be surprised when i call you on it and want to camp there...
Guest John Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) Who's to say a paranormal BF isn't the same as a F&B BF? ~SNIP~ I can move faster than usual and even dodge bullet would that make me paranormal? Or would it simply mean we can do things that we don't yet understand? Oh no..... It's that time of year again. Edited May 24, 2011 by John
gigantor Posted May 24, 2011 Admin Posted May 24, 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). BitterMonk, You are trolling in this thread because it seems your intention is to embarrass some members by using logic.
Guest gershake Posted May 24, 2011 Posted May 24, 2011 Well said Jodie! I haven't considered this thread much more than a "Bait & Switch". The Forum had stagnated and the fastest way to rev it up is either discuss Woo-woo stuff or attempt to discredit Woo-woo stuff regarding Bigfoot. Thinking it wouldn't be noticed as such is even funnier. ( still JMO) Plussed.
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 You are trolling in this thread because it seems your intention is to embarrass some members by using logic. I assure you my only intention was to ask an innocent question I thought of while taking a break from work. I can't be responsible for someone else's problems with logic.
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 I haven't considered this thread much more than a "Bait & Switch". The Forum had stagnated and the fastest way to rev it up is either discuss Woo-woo stuff or attempt to discredit Woo-woo stuff regarding Bigfoot. Thinking it wouldn't be noticed as such is even funnier. So in just your opinion is it more or less reasonable to assume that should a sasquatch be discovered tomorrow it wouldn't conform to all the alleged traits ascribed to it? If it didn't conform what would happen to the people that had ascribed those same traits?
norseman Posted May 25, 2011 Admin Posted May 25, 2011 In the spirit of hypotheticals I pose a simple question. Can the paranormal sasquatch be killed by the discovery of a normal sasquatch? By normal I mean an organism conforming to the known laws of biology as we understand them today. No infrasound. No shifting in and out of dimensions. No telepathy. No swiping smokes. No singing songs. Just a run of the mill primate. If such an animal were discovered would people espousing a paranormal entity refuse to accept the results? Would they proclaim a separate, as yet still undiscovered source for all their claimed phenomenon, or would they throw in the towel? I think they would be forced to rethink their position..... Attaching paranormal or special skills to animals is not a rare occurrence in human history. It probably has more to do with anthropology though than primatology. (I.e. Animals with intelligence, animals with speech, animal spirit guardians, so forth and so on) That part is more a story about us than it is a story about animals.
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 25, 2011 Posted May 25, 2011 I think you hit on a significant point. People do seem more prone to attribute the amazing to things they don't understand. Once that lack of understanding is removed it probably would kill off some of the "magic" so to speak. Still though I can't help but think that as Ray said some would continue to make claims based not on understanding but on belief. A variation of the red panda effect fueled by belief/want perhaps.
Recommended Posts