Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Skeptics

Recommended Posts

Guest

I'm going to start out by saying what I've witnessed on this new site so far is a very polarized group of individuals. The old forum seemed to flow and work together a little easier. Right now we're about as efficent as congress. Two sides working against each other. I'm not saying the moderators are doing their jobs. I'm just saying its an attitude many members carry. As Lincoln said, "United we stand, divided we fall."

Having said that I'm just going to dive right in. We should all, every one of us, be skeptics. Those who do field research are doing a great job. Keep going out there and getting it done. It will be one of you who gets the real evidence. However you shouldn't come in from the field and make every blur or shadow into a sasquatch. If you have a furry blur on your trail cam thats all it is. Even if it's a real sasquatch you can't call it that because you don't have the evidence. Now, if your experiencing rock throwing, calls, or wood knocking thats great. But don't rule out other humans. Certainly don't let that color your perception of an area and turn everything into evidence. We need to be more analytical and harder on evidence than the other guy so that when he tries to debunk we can come and say, "No, we thought of that."

What so many of us fail to realize is we are asking people to accept something that is pretty incredible. If you've seen one then you think it absurd to think that people wouldn't believe you. It is an incredible claim though and we need to remember that. There were no new large mammals discovered from 1936 until 1992. None. Then when one was found it was in the jungles of Vietnam. It wasn't out in the woods behind the shed. Its a big pill to swallow. So try to understand their point of view the way you want them to understand your own. It does seem incredible that we wouldn't know about such an animal by now. Even to me. I've never seen one but I'm on the pro side of the argument here, ladies and gents.

So skeptics shouldn't be thrown around as an insult. We should all be skeptics. We shouldn't be skeptics versus believers. Maybe those who are open to the idea, those who are unsure, and those who are not open to the idea. No versus. Working against each other will get us no where. If anything we should have those who are not open to the idea help us look at the evidence. To bring in fresh eyes. There are those who want so badly for sasquatch to be real that they see evidence of such everywhere and they get very passionate in the arguments. Everyone can. We all need to take a step back, take a breath, and try to look at any "evidence" gathered very objectively.

Remember, if it ain't obvious, it ain't evidence. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Thank you, sir. I just feel like we have been a bit more combative this go round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TooRisky

Well the "Old BFF" was so corrupt from the top down with power/drama that any and all opposition to any of the "Core" individuals would result in a "Permanent Ban"... So yes it flowed smoothly as long as you towed the party line...

Remember debate and argument formed this great country... We all don't have the same position and views, man what a boring world that would be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sonny

Good post. I'm a bit of a skeptic, in case you didn't notice, but I try to respect people who claim sightings. I myself spent over a year believing the creature existed, half scared out of my pants when I camped. After doing a lot of research, I've begun to feel it's a combination of many things, which have been covered in other posts. I now don't believe BF exists, but I would be the first to change my mind and eat crow if a specimen were found. I have no vested interest either way, unlike some who make money off it.

Where I get irritated is when people refuse to be open-minded and look at other possibilities for what they claim is a BF. Then they make people who are skeptical into their personal enemies and start being crass and demeaning. It then begins to smack of religious belief, where you can't prove anything and ask others to take it all on faith, claiming you're right. That has been the cause of many deaths on this planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Ah, but we can be respectful. We can also try to remain impartial ourselves. Try to see both sides. For what it's worth I wasn't a "core" member and had no issues. Normally is got so much to do with how you choose to interact with people. Like I said, try to remember your asking a lot of people to go for what your saying. If we think every snapped twig is Bigfoot no one will believe anything we say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sonny

Agreed. Respect is the mark of maturity and consideration for others. The Navajo have a cultural law that you never interrupt someone. It shows respect, even if you disagree.

And I will add that I have not yet explained to my personal satisfaction the many sightings out there, I think a lot are people's imaginations and such, but maybe not all, so I try to be open-minded. But critical thinking is also important (good morning to HRPuff). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

Skepticism is fine, but beware that it doesn't always lead to the truth. If it causes you to dismiss and not investigate , then you've gotten no further than someone who simply accepts something at face value. People who share their experiences / evidence found in a factual way should not have their mouth stuffed with claims they didn't make either. There is a balance of sharing info and not overstating what the evidence can support. We look at all evidence here in the light of the bigfoot phenomenon, but we can also agree that nobody has all the answers. Remember that even obvious evidence can crumble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sonny

Agreed, you should always examine evidence. Some so-called skeptics are just lazy people who don't want to be bothered by anything, they want the status quo to stay the status quo. That's about as bad as being so open-minded you believe anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Very excellent points! This is the kind of thread I was hoping this would turn into!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest dozy

Agreed, you should always examine evidence. Some so-called skeptics are just lazy people who don't want to be bothered by anything, they want the status quo to stay the status quo. That's about as bad as being so open-minded you believe anything.

I think it's more complex and intractable than that at times, though. Within the culture of the sasquatch-curious there are two different groups whose positions and interactions, while not actually being incompatible in theory, are expressed in such a way as to make them almost effectively incompatible in practice.

The first group ('A') sees the lack of serious and verifiable evidence as being as being an insurmountable issue with regard to extrapolating anything about sasquatch. They (quite properly) think that, without concrete grounds for even believing the creature exists, any speculation beyond that takes a turn for the non-sensical. There's nothing logically incorrect about adopting that position.

The second group ('B') believes they have unambiguously seen the creature with their own eyes, relegating the question of its existence to being of negligible importance, as to them it's a settled issue. They (quite properly) think the necessity of evidence and proof is therefore secondary. If you genuinely believe that you've seen the creature, there's nothing logically incorrect about adopting this position either.

These two groups don't, by any stretch, represent the sum total of interested people, but each of them is sufficiently large as to raise problems when it comes to a large subset of all the possible discussions regarding Sasquatch.

Group B naturally wants to get on with discussing the creature's habits, nature, and life patterns, in order to understand more and perhaps in the hope of seeing it again. Group A sees this as problematic given that, to them, existence hasn't even been established.

Group B, satisfied that the creature actually does exist, regards the documentary evidence as being of relatively strong value, with much of it bearing a strong correlation with their experiences. Group A regards the documentary evidence as poor, given the numerous alternative explanations for the data and given all the ways through history in which such inferences have been demonstrated to be prone to error.

Group B can't discuss what they want to discuss without members of Group A taking them to task over ever single assertion they make. Group A can't make the points they wish to make without Group B, in return, claiming superior knowledge and experience in the woods and with the creatures.

Group B would like a little less disparagement from Group A, and a little bit more respect for the integrity of their personal experiences which, after all, were gained by being engaged and active in the woods. Group A would like Group B to have more respect-for and adherence-to the scientific method which, after all, was developed over millennia to rule out as many ways of coming to false conclusions as possible.

To be honest, I think that if Group B were a little bit more honest about the quality of the data and Group A were a little bit more respectful about Group B's personal experience, an awful lot of the heat would be taken out of the situation, but the fact that Group B want to move beyond questions of existence and Group A can't see any reason to is always going to bedevil the field until satisfactory evidence of existence is found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Brilliant. Mostly it boils down to respect I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Good posts. Good thread.

The moderators are trying to come up with some general posting guidelines for the forum and I want to come up with some good guidelines for those that want to post a sighting report and for those that want to question a sighting report.

Respect must be addressed with both groups.

In a perfect Bigfoot Forums world, a person would come and claim a bigfoot sighting or a bigfoot encounter of some nature. Then a person that believes in bigfoot would want to ask questions or make statements to further learn about the encounter. A person that is more skeptical of the encounter would want to ask questions or make statements in order to offer an alternative cause to the reported bigfoot encounter.

Both groups are very much welcome. But, questions and statements to the thread must be made with a respectful attitude. We must learn to make posts as if we were sitting in a living room across from the member we are talking to, instead of behind a computer on the internet.

Also, the experience and educational background of the poster should not have anything to do with their right to make a statement or ask a question. It doesn't matter if you have a second grade education or a PhD. You should still be able to come here and discuss bigfoot, from either side.

Splash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Good call splash. I think questioning an encounter is okay if, like you stated, one is respectful. If fact questioning an encounter is required if we are to learn anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...