The Ketchum Report

[Guest]

I don't believe in that entity you mentioned either Shaun...but I do debate those who do, regularly. I also debate, regularly, conspiracy theorists. I've debated literal scholars. I've debated Oswald as the lone gunman. I debate people who believe in ghosts. I read and study voraciously and come to the most impartial, unbiased conclusion on a whole host of topics. What fascinates me is people who arrive at conclusions or beliefs so quickly without doing their intellectually responsible due diligence first.

Example: Someone at work over-heard me talking with a c-worker about Oswald. He waited for a lull in the conversation and said, "Oh. Oswald? There were definitely two shooters." I asked what made him think that and he said, and I'm not joking, "What, you didn't see that JFK movie with Kevin Costner?" Later in the conversation he called the Zapruder film the McGruber film. I'm not making any of this up.

It fascinates me the differing levels of critical thinking that individuals use to arrive at their conclusions.

[Incorrigible1]

So, it was McGruber on the grassy knoll. Thank you for helping me finally understand.

[Guest]

^ lol!

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Good answer Saskeptic.

A lesser answer would be mine below.

Some proponents also want the world to know. They want people to listen to certain issues. Well, the world isn't onboard yet, but at least we are here to listen. I usually stay out of the proponent lovefest threads, but some want others to see the evidence in these types of threads. Unfortunately some get upset when they don't like the reaction to the evidence. This would be one of those times. I have a tougher time buying into some things, that's all. That's the only difference between me and a proponent. There is no impenetrable wall up. I can change my mind if the logic is there for me. Twig huts never did anything for me and you cannot guilt me into another stance.

[Guest Jodie]

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

http://www.criticalt...al-thinking/766

That said, critical thinking need not be based on empirical data alone since that is limited to what the senses tell you. Does it mean everything else is hog wash if it can't be explained empirically? Critical thinking includes deductive reasoning and deductive reasoning says "no". One can't cherry pick to suit a particular world view as much as some would smugly like to do that around here. That, people, is critical thinking.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Jodie

[Guest BFSleuth]

What if I'm positively passionate about promoting critical thinking and empiricism? Debunking and disproving may seem like negative things to some, but to me they are positive things if they encourage more people to base their beliefs on things that can be empirically demonstrated.

+1 Well said.

At first I must say I was a little put off by the healthy skepticism on this forum. However, I believe that the open mindedness for all sides of this debate on this forum has really helped this forum grow. It has also changed how I think and consider the issue of BF for the better. Saskeptic is a good example of well reasoned skepticism that helps challenge an unreasoned believer or challenges a knower (with sightings) to understand that in order to convince the world of the existence of BF there is a level of evidence required. While at times that level may be in dispute, the debate is healthy and good for our community.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Cool website Jodie.

I'm curious to know what the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking has to say about bigfoot log futons....... and if Bill and Ted are the leaders of that group.

[bipedalist]

Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.

http://www.criticalt...al-thinking/766

That said, critical thinking need not be based on empirical data alone since that is limited to what the senses tell you. Does it mean everything else is hog wash if it can't be explained empirically? Critical thinking includes deductive reasoning and deductive reasoning says "no". One can't cherry pick to suit a particular world view as much as some would smugly like to do that around here. That, people, is critical thinking.

Yah, prominent there is the observation that "one's experiences" are as important as empiricism.

Edited April 25, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

Except that one's "experience" or "ecounter, can't be "tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

[Guest Jodie]

Then it gets down to how the person synthesizes all of the above. According to my critical thinking skills, that would mean that you would not know with any certainty how that might function making your stance simply an opinion and empirically invaild.

[bipedalist]

....one's "experience"

Are you sure, ever here of a single subject (n of one) experimental model ?

Plural (experiences)

The individual can serve as the control (baseline comparisons can be made and subjected to statistical analysis as well).

Edited April 25, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

But not their own control. Reread your linky.

[Guest gerrykleier]

So, it was McGruber on the grassy knoll. Thank you for helping me finally understand.

He was there to stop the 2nd Gunmen and fell asleep. Everybody knows that.

GK

[bipedalist]

Still it would be easy to do baseline, intervention, reversal on something as simple as sound file captures and putative BF call blasts in an active region or area..... not a true experiment but certainly quasi- enough if you wanted to head down that road and activity was consistent enough to warrant the efforts....

[Guest]

Exactly Jodie, which is why someone's sighting is empirically invalid on its own.