WSA Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 By that I mean Norse: More than there has ever been...not an insignificant number...and trending up, not static and not declining. The current estimate for Americans is around 30% +/- . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 What you are neglecting to share are the other fringe beliefs held by a large number of Americans: Astology is real: 13% Fortune tellers can see the future: 18% Believe UFOs are spaceships: 44% Houses can be haunted by spirits: 52% Dreams can foretell the future: 56% Believe you can influence the physical world via thought: 63% I'm not sure what the point of an argumentum ad populum is here, but are you similarly impressed by the above topics? Do you think the sheer number of people that believe something matters? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post dmaker Posted May 25, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted May 25, 2017 11 hours ago, DWA said: As shown by a simple fact: no one who thinks this isn't real has an opinion based in it. Which means - and this is science talking, not me talking - that they don't have an opinion that counts, at all. Well, comments like that will help to ensure a one sided conversation. I can't believe you actually just said to the entire membership here that if you don't agree with me, your opinion does not count. Your arrogance has reached a new height. I'd say congratulations, but you're probably already patting your own back. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 1 hour ago, dmaker said: What you are neglecting to share are the other fringe beliefs held by a large number of Americans: Astology is real: 13% Fortune tellers can see the future: 18% Believe UFOs are spaceships: 44% Houses can be haunted by spirits: 52% Dreams can foretell the future: 56% Believe you can influence the physical world via thought: 63% I'm not sure what the point of an argumentum ad populum is here, but are you similarly impressed by the above topics? Do you think the sheer number of people that believe something matters? It would be interesting to see what the overlap is between these fringe beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 (edited) You know, I take no stance on those other phenomena, whether they are supported by evidence or not, the quality of the evidence, or lack of quality. What others think about them doesn't inform my conclusions about BF at all and I really have no interest in them to the extent I do about this topic. I of course realize they do get lumped into the same category by many, and the fault for that is probably it is just too enticing a headline... "UFO Brought the BF That Stole My Baby!" sez The National Enquirer sort of thing, right? We really aren't a serious culture anymore, if we ever were, and that explains so much about our failures to address so many issues, BF being just one of those. But anyway..... What makes BF a special problem to me is, fundamentally, because it is a problem rooted in human evolution and biology. What the rest of those subjects on that list have in common is they are not. Despite many of the paranormal theories about BF floating around on the fringes of the field, BF can be explained using garden-variety biology, evolution and natural history. No woo-woo necessary. When you compare the BF problem to them I believe you are equating lightning with the lightning bug, as M. Twain might have said. It allows you to avoid the fundamental nature of the problem and does nothing to answer what is really a unique question. Edited May 25, 2017 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Bigfoot is special. That's the gist of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 25, 2017 Admin Share Posted May 25, 2017 11 hours ago, WSA said: By that I mean Norse: More than there has ever been...not an insignificant number...and trending up, not static and not declining. The current estimate for Americans is around 30% +/- . If it was 100% it would not matter. Im thoroughly convinced most proponents do not want to get to the bottom of this. They would rather participate in this myth for eternity, than to move forward to the answer with the very real possibility the creature does not exist. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Sure...I find it to be true in all my dealings with people over many decades, we'd always much rather restate the problem over and over before we'll make the first attempt to take steps to solve it. It is always just more satisfying to do that, it seems. For those with small children, you know how they have the tendency to do this especially. But not to be pejorative about it. There are people who have moved on to working at real solutions. They are the few though, and lack resources. For every one of those we have probably ten who will either tell you the problem never existed or that it has already been solved to (what they say should be) the satisfaction of everyone. These kinds are both pro and con on this subject. I tend to believe both sides of that divide are wrong, according to those actively looking for the solution...which are the only ones, really, who matter at all for my purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, WSA said: BF can be explained using garden-variety biology, evolution and natural history. As can those other phenomena. The science of psychology and history of myth and popular cultural beliefs explain well both bigfoot and spaceship sightings. They both also challenge assertions like never has there been this kind of false positive ever, therefore bigfoot is real. We have more spaceship believers than bigfoot, so that kind of pokes holes in that argument. 1 hour ago, WSA said: When you compare the BF problem to them I believe you are equating lightning with the lightning bug, as M. Twain might have said. It allows you to avoid the fundamental nature of the problem and does nothing to answer what is really a unique question. Not at all. Whether it is unknown things in the sky, or in the woods, matters little to me. The situations are similar. Both are fed by thousands of eye witness claims. There is very little physical evidence to examine. Very similar situations, yet you and I arrive at completely different questions. You examine the evidence and conclude bigfoot exists, therefore your question is what is the natural history of this animal and how has it eluded documentation for so long? I examine the evidence and conclude there is an almost zero chance that bigfoot exists, so my question becomes why do people report seeing something that does not exist? Edited May 25, 2017 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 57 minutes ago, norseman said: If it was 100% it would not matter.Well, that's correct. What people think doesn't matter to reality. After all, most 'scientists' don't think sasquatch and yeti are real. After all, at the cutting edge of any science, almost none of the world's scientists are even playing. Im thoroughly convinced most proponents do not want to get to the bottom of this. They would rather participate in this myth for eternity, than to move forward to the answer with the very real possibility the creature does not exist.I think that several of the scientific proponents would consider that insulting. People have to eat, and no one is making full-time - or part-time - eating money off of this. Krantz and Meldrum and Mionczynski and Bindernagel are holding down full-time jobs having nothing to do with this. (HOLD THAT: Meldrum is and Krantz was among the world's top specialists in primate locomotor adaptations...which is why the footprints told them this is real.) Any scientist worthy of that name would be asking: why are they devoting so much money/time/LIFE to this, particularly when they seem (count on this) smarter than me? But they don't. Which is why I laugh at them when it comes to this. The sheer lack of curiosity, it boggles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 It appears to me your misunderstanding Dmaker is that you believe I'm open to having that kind of debate with you, or with anyone else for that matter. I'm not. I filled that proponent/opponent Bingo card long ago. I'm only interested in defining the problem as I see it to be, in a manner that fits my perception of it. This is it. If you want an exercise in debate, seek if from somebody else, sorry. On the topic of the original post, I also am of the opinion that it frames the scientific response by anyone who might consider themselves to qualify as a (capital "S") Scientist. You differ in that assessment, I get that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 On 5/23/2017 at 11:11 PM, dmaker said: Yeah, and that person does not believe bigfoot to exist. So, that proves that reading a ton of reports has more than one conclusion. That is something you seem to struggle with. As you said, a scientist, which you are not, has read many reports and arrived at a different conclusion than you. You see, that is possible. I've read far more reports than you give me credit for. I actually kind of enjoy reading them for their folklore value. The reports are a great source of shared mythology. Granted, we approach them from a different mindset, but do not kid yourself when you think I am a stranger to the reports. I told you why saskeptic's approach is totally invalid from a scientist's perspective, right? Yes I did. In plain English. But this is something you seem to struggle with. Your approach is equally invalid. You approach the reports - get this, APPROACH THE REPORTS - as FALSE. Shoot, even saskeptic's totally unscientific approach was better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 3 hours ago, norseman said: Im thoroughly convinced most proponents do not want to get to the bottom of this. They would rather participate in this myth for eternity, than to move forward to the answer with the very real possibility the creature does not exist. Absolutely. I agree quite strongly. I would even take it a step further and postulate that many already know the creature does not exist, and that for them bigfooting is more of an adult live action role-playing game. 2 hours ago, WSA said: It appears to me your misunderstanding Dmaker is that you believe I'm open to having that kind of debate with you, or with anyone else for that matter. I'm not. I filled that proponent/opponent Bingo card long ago. I'm only interested in defining the problem as I see it to be, in a manner that fits my perception of it. This is it. If you want an exercise in debate, seek if from somebody else, sorry. On the topic of the original post, I also am of the opinion that it frames the scientific response by anyone who might consider themselves to qualify as a (capital "S") Scientist. You differ in that assessment, I get that. There is no misunderstanding. I don't expect you to have an existence debate with me. Both of those needles are firmly stuck where they are right now and the only thing that would change that is for the current evidence bar to be kicked up quite a bit. I was more trying read between the lines of your comments. As I've said many times, I am interested in the motivations and mindset of those that choose to participate in this phenomenon as proponents. So, when you started talking about a concerted effort to get to the bottom of the mystery, I was curious what you meant, since the "mystery" is not whether bigfoot exists or not. You still have not really answered that question, but that is your prerogative. It's not that important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 ^^^Good. Glad we have that understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 (edited) There are two ways for a scientist to look at this, or he's not one: 1) IF HE HAS PERUSED THE EVIDENCE TO A SIGNIFICANT DEGREE: I think that this is a real animal OR I think that follow-up research in the field is required/justified (or suitable variants on these two responses, depending upon the degree of perusal). 2) IF HE HAS NOT: I await the proof and wish the searchers luck. THAT'S IT. Nothing else has accumulated this much evidence of this breadth and depth - not even close - prior to its acceptance as real by the society at large. It's five decades past full-court-press time. The animal should have been confirmed in 1968, latest. The total effort since P/G hasn't gotten up to the level required to have done that. Period. If sasquatch is confirmed - our comprehensive species stone-headedness forbids "when" - it will be a comprehensive indictment of the professional practice of science. Edited May 25, 2017 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts