Guest Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I believe to the Skeptic community as a whole has alot to loose Saskeptic. You're right Julio in that I could actually gain professionally and materially from a bigfoot discovery, and that this is not the case with most skeptics. But I still don't see what other than enduring a few "I-told-you-so"s would be such a problem for other skeptics. To a person, the skeptics I know (and the ones you're familiar with here on the BFF) would be ecstatic to learn that bigfoots exist, even if it meant having to admit "Son-of-a-gun: I was wrong." The world is far more interesting if I am wrong and there are bigfoots than if I'm right and there aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 (edited) I don't think enduring the "I-told-you-so"'s will be as hard as issuing the apologies. There are a lot of people that would deserve one if science proves these things exist. Edited December 12, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 As wittnesses though we also will gain some too that we were not crazy after all and that we were actually seeing a living entity. I don't think anyone that seen one is crazy, But even if it is proven that don't mean everyone that claimed to see one is some how vindicated, ( for lack of a better word ) there will be lots to do and still many questions to be asked. I truely believe that even if they had a body that this core of hard core skeptics would have a hard time accepting that. Even if there was a body laying in front of them they would still be in denial of their existance. I can't believe that at all, if science accepted a body it is a body end of story, if someone denied BF's existence after that their lacking something up stairs, after all that is what skeptic's and others want. Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 ...About the DNA report. I don't think Parn is merely saying that the report will say Bigfoot DNA is 100% human. Instead, it will claim the DNA shows some small divergence from Gen Bank 100% human, but that this will be an eventually indefensible position and others will conclude the DNA samples are 100% human and that the report mistaken. as we used to say in the Forest Service: "close enough for gubmint work." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Here are some examples of this so-called "damage" and how it might affect me personally if bigfoot was proven to exist: 1) I'd get to share in the joy of an amazing new discovery, and that joy would be a serious "Christmas morning as a kid" kind of joy. 2) I'd be able to carry the hope with me that I might in fact encounter a bigfoot firsthand while doing field work. This would thrill me immeasurably. 3) Given my knowledge of the subject, I could rather easily cast myself as something of an expert on the topic. 4) Grant money would become rapidly and abundantly available to study such creatures, and I'd be in excellent position to be awarded competitive grants to do such studies. 5) My field research and scholarly interest in bigfoot would lead to peer-reviewed publications of high impact, which are the most important professional currency in my profession. 6) On the wave of my bigfoot work, I would easily be promoted to full professor, and enjoy many a back-slap from my colleagues who will sheepishly admit that I was right to have been paying attention to this bigfoot stuff all those years. 7) My "lost" bet with Huntster would mean that I would have to "endure" an Alaskan vacation and treat one of my most entertaining and thoughtful intellectual foes to a prime rib dinner. So this would be a bad thing for me exactly how? I ain't seeing the downside of a bigfoot discovery . . . I chose my words very carefully Sas - Skeptic community - Those messsageboards and organizations that devote a large part of their resources to the notion that BF doesn't exist. They've painted themselves into a corner by employing shutdown debate tactics to bolster their beliefs. If proof is produced that BF does exist, they lose credibility. A Skeptic community without credibility would be relegated to the fringes of the debate, and take my word for it, it’s very difficult to be heard from that position. Would you personally lose credibility if BF is proven to exist? I don't know if I can answer that question given how little I know I about your exact stance on BF. I haven't seen any absolute statements from you. Actually, I've seen fairly well-reasoned responses from you in the past, so I expect you are open to the possibility, but you think it is highly improbable. If that's the case, I don't count you as a Skeptic (note the uppercase 'S'). I see you as skeptical and I think everyone should look at all evidence and eyewitness stories with the same amount of skepticism. I even count myself among the improbable but possible crowd. The difference between us is probably very small. That being said, if a string of absolute statements can be found attributed to you that are proven to be incorrect and those statements are based on your prejudices instead of research, you can't deny that your credibility will take a hit. All your work will be looked at differently from that moment on. It happens all the time. Again, I have no idea if that applies to you because I don't know if you've ever made such statements. I don't think enduring the "I-told-you-so"'s will be as hard as issuing the apologies. There are a lot of people that would deserve one if science proves these things exist. Right on, Slim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I don't think enduring the "I-told-you-so"'s will be as hard as issuing the apologies. There are a lot of people that would deserve one if science proves these things exist. I'm not sure who those people are or for what they would deserve apologies. Proof of bigfoot tomorrow would not render Biscardi or the Georgia Boys somehow absolved of their hoaxing. It would not suddenly make the PGF authentic footage of an actual bigfoot. It would not suddenly make all the anecdotal accounts factual. I, for one, would be at least as skeptical of any new bigfoot claim following discovery as I am today. By that I mean that I'd evaluate the evidence for the claim with the same degree of scrutiny. I'd hope the same of all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowBorn Posted December 12, 2011 Moderator Share Posted December 12, 2011 You're right Julio in that I could actually gain professionally and materially from a bigfoot discovery, and that this is not the case with most skeptics. But I still don't see what other than enduring a few "I-told-you-so"s would be such a problem for other skeptics. To a person, the skeptics I know (and the ones you're familiar with here on the BFF) would be ecstatic to learn that bigfoots exist, even if it meant having to admit "Son-of-a-gun: I was wrong." Yes , What makes it so hard is that i do not want to be one of those to say " I told you so" it would not be nice or fair.I have never really thought that there would be an out come and yet we are so close to an end.This report will either make or break and is going to lead most people in a direction that we are still not sure of except for those in the know.All i know that many doors will be open when it does come into the open that these creatures do exist.It is not going to happen in years but it is going to happen quicly.Are we really prepared for that out come? I am looking at this like they are a link to us that we have been looking for and to many people it is going to be hard to accept this.With everything that we have been taught could now be changed with a living link that is now living within our forest and even in our world.There is going to be a a fall out ,we just do not know how big it will be.Questions are going to be asked and answers are going to be needed.So alot is going to have be really thought out when all this is released.Again this just my opionion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I don't care about any of it, I just want to know what the DNA report says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 (edited) I don't think enduring the "I-told-you-so"'s will be as hard as issuing the apologies. There are a lot of people that would deserve one if science proves these things exist. You tell me who these people are who would deserve an apology and for what, and if you can make a case, I'll be there apologizing. But you could do that now, because that would have to be for something personal. I don't apologize for holding a rational belief or disagreeing with folks or pointing out why or questioning. Last time I checked this forum wasn't a bridal shower or the Princess and the Pea, but seems like some call the Waambulance over the smallest inferred slight. I could be wrong. I did use the "intellectually dishonest" meme once a day or two back just for demonstration purposes. That gets tossed at skeptics by believers here like it was Old Spice before a frat party. Haven't seen any apologies for that, but I haven't checked my PM box today. Maybe those apologies are there waiting for me. Or maybe when it is proved that bigfoot doesn't exist. oh wait.... Edited December 12, 2011 by parnassus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I'm not sure who those people are or for what they would deserve apologies. Proof of bigfoot tomorrow would not render Biscardi or the Georgia Boys somehow absolved of their hoaxing. It would not suddenly make the PGF authentic footage of an actual bigfoot. It would not suddenly make all the anecdotal accounts factual. I, for one, would be at least as skeptical of any new bigfoot claim following discovery as I am today. By that I mean that I'd evaluate the evidence for the claim with the same degree of scrutiny. I'd hope the same of all of us. No one is talking about the hoaxers. I'm not sure how they deserve an apology or why you would bring them up. I'm thinking of the academics who've had their jobs threatened because of their research. I can think of two off the top of my head, Professor Krantz & Dr. Meldrum. And yes, posthumous apologies do count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest parnassus Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I don't care about any of it, I just want to know what the DNA report says. yeah, we've just about done the speculation thing to death. I mean its getting down to who is jumping who. We need MEAT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I chose my words very carefully Sas - Skeptic community - Those messsageboards and organizations that devote a large part of their resources to the notion that BF doesn't exist. I think you're mischaracterizing modern skepticism. Skeptics work to employ critical thinking, a key part of which is to follow the evidence. If the evidence confirms bigfoot, skeptics will happily accept the reality of bigfoot. It's really quite simple. Given the evidence produced to date, skeptics are unconvinced of the reality of bigfoot. Given new and better evidence that confirms the reality of bigfoot, skeptics will would be convinced of the reality of bigfoot. "Oh, I was wrong. Cool!" That's not an expression we hear often enough among the general populace, but it's one every good skeptic is prepared to utter should the evidence warrant. As for absolutist statements from me, I don't feel comfortable attaching a percentage to my belief in bigfoot. I am completely unconvinced by the evidence put forward to-date that there is an extant physical, biological "bigfoot". I attribute the phenomenon to a cultural/societal construct. If new and better information was produced that proved otherwise, I would gladly accept that information and modify my opinion accordingly. Some people might interpret my opinion as 1% chance, 0% chance, or something in between; I don't have a problem with that. I'm completely comfortable making a general statement like "there is no bigfoot" with the knowledge that I might one day have to modify that statement to something like "I used to be convinced there was no bigfoot, but my opinion was wrong." I guess I prefer to cast my percent belief as either 0 or 100, rather than try to estimate something in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I did use the "intellectually dishonest" meme once a day or two back just for demonstration purposes. That gets tossed at skeptics by believers here like it was Old Spice before a frat party. Haven't seen any apologies for that, but I haven't checked my PM box today. Maybe those apologies are there waiting for me. Or maybe when it is proved that bigfoot doesn't exist. oh wait.... I got to say you come up with some goods ones Tim ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 (edited) Of course known hoaxers won't be absolved of anything. Assuming these things are real, each account past and present will have to be weighed like any other account of a known, real world phenomenon. There are plenty of people that have never claimed a sighting but have been ridiculed for trying to evaluate the available evidence or even expressing an interest. If they've been singled out and science offers proof, then yeah, I think they deserve an apology. It's one thing to say you don't believe, it's quite another to mock someone openly for merely being curious. Edited December 12, 2011 by slimwitless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I'm thinking of the academics who've had their jobs threatened because of their research. I can think of two off the top of my head, Professor Krantz & Dr. Meldrum. And yes, posthumous apologies do count. Krantz was a full professor at a major research university. Meldrum is a tenured associate professor at a major research university. I see no evidence that either of their careers have suffered from active engagement in bigfoot-related research, despite the fact that this notion is so often tossed around in bigfooty circles. This does not mean that neither man has endured harsh criticism from some of their peers, only that the criticism cannot be demonstrated to have been job-threatening. (For a bit of perspective, I spent the first two hours of my day in a meeting this morning to discuss the dossiers and vote on the promotion of two of our tenured professors from "associate" to "full" rank, so I know a bit about this stuff.) There are plenty of people that have never claimed a sighting but have been ridiculed for trying to evaluate the available evidence or even expressing an interest. . . . It's one thing to say you don't believe, it's quite another to mock someone openly for merely being curious. People who would mock someone for expressing interest in evaluating evidence to determine the legitimacy of some reported phenomenon are not "skeptics", they are "jerks." While those terms are by no means mutually exclusive, it should really be the "jerk community" to whom you should seek apologies under your scenario, not the "skeptical community." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts