BobZenor Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 The site used to have control about people posting that have nothing but contempt for most of the people on this site. Calling them skeptics is what is insulting. I am a skeptic. Many of them are trolls whose goal is to discredit the site. It doesn't take a genius to realize that. All you have to do is read what they write on other sites.
Guest Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 Well, I guess I only use this sight so I kind of have blinders on. Like I said, we should all be skeptics.
Guest Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 I have never thought of the word skeptic as an ugly word. I believe in bigfoot, yet I am skeptical of some of the claims made by others. The moderators here can only address what a member here posts.
indiefoot Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 If I am so arrogantly convinced I'm right on a point that I entitle myself to ridicule those who disagree with me, I am unable to teach and unable to learn and that is a truly sad place to be. This field could use a huge dose of humility on both sides of the issue.
Guest Lesmore Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 (edited) 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... Quite true...although I would revise a bit to.....debate and argument formed democracies and although we don't all have the same position and views...we do need to be able to logically develop and defend our views and positions. Les Edited September 17, 2010 by Lesmore
Guest Sonny Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 Splash, I came on the old BFF and was asked to post my "sighting," which I did. It's under Sightings - When Seeing Isn't Believing. I don't know if you can reference it or not. I mention it because I was thoroughly grilled and yet it seemed to be in good nature. It might serve as an example of how things could be.
Guest Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 As mentioned in the recently closed thread on multiple encounters, my pointed questions to a person who made some pretty wild claims were handled very well by that person. It was other folks who blew a gasket - the witness was fine.
Guest rockinkt Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 Quite true...although I would revise a bit to.....debate and argument formed democracies and although we don't all have the same position and views...we do need to be able to logically develop and defend our views and positions. Les my bold Exactly! People on both sides "need to be able to logically develop and defend their views and positions".
Guest RayG Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 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. Judging by the misinformation that gets bandied about, I'd say so-called skeptics aren't the only lazy ones. RayG
Guest Sonny Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 I do think it takes more work to be skeptic, you have to think about things more...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 Judging by the misinformation that gets bandied about, I'd say so-called skeptics aren't the only lazy ones. RayG The ( Miss-information ) would be worked out just fine by the members a lot faster if some would stop demanding such lengthy explanations from folks that do not wish too join the scientific community every time they make a post that happens to have the word BIGFOOT ~
Guest RayG Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 I doubt it. Nearly every day I see someone spout something that has been shown to be at the very least misinformation, and often quite untrue. There's no requirement to join any scientific community, but there should be a requirement to be factual. RayG
gigantor Posted September 18, 2010 Admin Posted September 18, 2010 (edited) Maybe there should a section for eyewitness reports where "special" rules apply. The witness would be "protected" from criticism and granted "unconditional respect" within that thread of the forum in order to facilitate documentation of the story. If the witness then chooses to engage within the "normal" sections of the forum, or if members choose to create a thread and criticize the sighting elsewhere, have at it. Edited September 18, 2010 by gigantor
Bill Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 Good thread. The term "skeptic" or "skeptical" in the classical and honorable sense, is one whose logical frame of mind asks for evidence, logical arguments, and consideration of alternatives as part of the critical thinking process which leads to a conclusion. So, in the classical sense, a person may be skeptical of a species of primate called "bigfoot" existing, and a person could equally be skeptical that all the sightings, encounters, footprints and such (attributed to Bigfoot) are mere hoaxes or mis-identified sources. Where I personally think things go wrong is in a matter dear to my heart, one I commented on often in the old forum. That is the personal goal each person embraces when engaged in a debate, to understand or to win. Those who are intent on winning lose sight of the balance needed to really understand, and worse, lose sight of the fact that to attain a true understanding is always a 'win". I don't know what is going on with the whole BF thing. I often acknowledge it mystifies me (and I find it ammusing that some people think this description of my outlook is somehow disingenuous. If I wanted to lie about my position, I'd come up with a more impressive lie) and I'd sure love to understand what's going on, and I'll be happy with any conclusion that really does result from evidence, logical arguments, and consideration of alternatives. Bill
Guest Posted September 18, 2010 Posted September 18, 2010 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. No more so than the old one. The old forum seemed to flow and work together a little easier. Where were you during the flame wars of recent months? This place is the definition of calm and civility compared to the Decline and Fall of the Bigfoot Forums... Two sides working against each other. SSDD...but at least it's civil. I'm not saying the moderators are doing their jobs. I think they're doing a fine job. They just aren't jumping in to support various persons with their Mod hammers the way they were on the old forum. As Lincoln said, "United we stand, divided we fall." There's nothing to unite around in the minds of the hardcore "skeptics". Having said that I'm just going to dive right in. We should all, every one of us, be skeptics. In the classic sense of the word, yes, and applying it BOTH ways, to the arguements AGAINST BF as well as those FOR BF. However you shouldn't come in from the field and make every blur or shadow into a sasquatch. The people that do are few and far between. 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. Careful, that's circular reasoning 101 technique right there, or closing in on it.
Recommended Posts