What's A Skeptic?

[Guest]

Am I missing something here? Am I just plain stupid? Did I breath too much hay dust at the barn dance last night?

This little paragraph is just plain plaguing me:

Huntster you are one hilarious dude. You search around for definitions and labels to apply en masse to those who differ with you, then proceed to show that the labels don't fit. Does it occur to you how circular that is?

I consider Parnassus intelligent. I consider Huntster intelligent. I consider myself intelligent (HEY, you in the corner! Quit laughing!), but I am just not understanding.

So Huntster replies to Geogerm that "...skeptics believe things", then he shows the dictionary definitions for Skeptical and Denial, and then makes the statement, "Anybody who openly states that, "Bigfoot doesn't exist

...aaaw, forget it. Not worth the energy.

[indiefoot]

I see evidence of believers policing themselves, not so much for the skeptical crowd. When is the last time you saw a "That sort of thing makes all skeptics look bad"?

[Guest manofthesea]

Firstly, the Bigfoot Forums has had true skeptics amongst its membership.

But I think a number of antibelievers have identified themselves with being skeptics and that has muddied the waters. By that I mean people who believe that bigfoot doesn't exist and couldn't exist. They'll even apply faultly logic to disallow for the possibility of bigfoot's existance. Hence the failure to understand even the most basic pro bigfoot argument.

[Guest RayG]

What is the most basic pro bigfoot argument?

RayG

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 03 October 2010 - 07:40 AM, said:

I have no problem being a believer. Do you have a problem with denialists being so labelled?

I'm not keen on labels to begin with

Yeah, that makes people squeamish these days, as if the language hurts or something.

I both linked and quoted the dictionary, for Pete's sake. These are benign words we're talking about here: believer, skeptic, and denialist. Shouldn't be a big deal.

But they are. To the denialists, and apparently to skeptics, too.

All goes to show yet again that they can never be satisfied.

but where I see a problem is when all skeptics are considered denialists even when they aren't.

And when did I do that? I quoted and linked the dictionary, and stated this:

Anybody who openly states that, "Bigfoot doesn't exist" is, by definition, in denial, or a denialist, because they cannot know if bigfoot exists or not.

Is that incorrect? Evil?

You then stated:

And anybody who openly states that "Bigfoot exists" is, by definition, a believer, because they cannot know if bigfoot exists or not. They believe.

I agreed, because what you wrote is accurate in accordance with the dictionary definition.

So what's the problem?

(Oh, BTW, see if you can find where I have ever "openly stated that "bigfoot exists"'; I believe what you will find is that I always write, "I believe that bigfoot exists", because I try to be careful with the language. Words are important. I don't want to misuse them like some particular denialists that I know, then try to argue foolishly what words do and don't mean just to cover my foolishness.)

Edited October 3, 2010 by Huntster

[Huntster]

What is the most basic pro bigfoot argument?

I believe it is this:

There is enough evidence to warrant more investigation and research.

Now, what do denialists say about that statement? The new BFF is brimming of such.

Need I go into a quote fest?..................

[Guest RayG]

No squeamishness on my part, sticking a label on someone adds absolutely nothing to the argument, and tries to compartmentalize people. It's the poisoning the well fallacy -- don't listen to him, he's a scoundrel/skeptic/denialist/believer. Shouldn't we be attacking the argument, and not the person making it?

And no, it shouldn't be a big deal, but somebody, somewhere is going drag one of those out when arguing instead of actually addressing the argument. If they contribute nothing to the argument, why bother using them?

I'm a word nut too, and if scoftic = denialist, fine, as scoftic seems to be defined as someone dogmatic in their denial. However, too many incorrectly use scoftic = skeptic, which is similar to using creduloid = believer.

Not a huge deal maybe, but if we're trying to be clear and precise when communicating...

I believe it is this:

There is enough evidence to warrant more investigation and research.

No argument from me with that statement, I agree.

RayG

[GuyInIndiana]

Ok, but SERIOUSLY... *WHO*, that visits any bigfoot forum or blog or website, who's seen or at least "really believes" in bigfoot/sasquatch, really "cares" what anyone says? Seriously?

And WHY should you?

[Guest]

What is the most basic pro bigfoot argument?

RayG

Faith. There, I said it.

[Huntster]

......sticking a label on someone adds absolutely nothing to the argument, and tries to compartmentalize people. It's the poisoning the well fallacy -- don't listen to him, he's a scoundrel/skeptic/denialist/believer. Shouldn't we be attacking the argument, and not the person making it?

Sure; until that "argument", which has already been addressed time and time and time and time and time again, that it is clear that the tactic is to represent the argument for the sake of keeping the "opponent" busy with addressing it.

Ray, let's face it: if someone absolutely believes that sasquatches don't exist, why would they bother making a long term presence on a forum like this arguing that position with people who believe? There really is a limited number of reasons that make any sort of sense:

1) They really don't believe that. Deep down inside, they really believe it's possible, yet say otherwise for a reason that I really can't comprehend; fear maybe?

2) They simply can't accept other people believing something that they don't believe, and are trying desperately to make them stop believing; again, why someone would do this is beyond me.

3) They hate belief itself, and are in war with it and all who believe anything (which, of course, they do themselves, and when you point that out, their very fury illustrates that this is, indeed, their problem)

Skeptics and denialists have at least one appropriate forum where they can go to high five each other, put the bad mouth on this forum and it's participants, and all is good. What do they need to come here for and "poison the well"? For the good of the believers, or for their own satisfaction? It certainly isn't for the good of actually coming to a resolution to this phenomenon. They will never be successful in making people stop believing in the existence of sasquatch, or anything else, for that matter.

And no, it shouldn't be a big deal, but somebody, somewhere is going drag one of those out when arguing instead of actually addressing the argument. If they contribute nothing to the argument, why bother using them?

Because they are accurate and true?

I'm a word nut too, and if scoftic = denialist, fine, as scoftic seems to be defined as someone dogmatic in their denial. However, too many incorrectly use scoftic = skeptic, which is similar to using creduloid = believer.

I agree that there are many skeptics who are not denialists. You are one, and I have no problem admitting that.

I believe that I am a believer, but I don't believe anybody thinks I'm a "creduloid" (which, like "skoftic", is not in the dictionary).

I thought Roger Knights creation of the word "skoftic" was amusing, but I don't use the word. I don't need to. Recognized words in the dictionary are good enough for me, and they certainly have the delightful effect of infuriating intended targets (not parnassus' silly post on my use of the dictionary...........it was like food for my soul).

Not a huge deal maybe, but if we're trying to be clear and precise when communicating...

Huntster, on 03 October 2010 - 11:51 AM, said:

I believe it is this:

There is enough evidence to warrant more investigation and research.

No argument from me with that statement, I agree.

I suspected that you would. You are not a denialist, and are genuinely interested in the phenomenon.

[Huntster]

Ok, but SERIOUSLY... *WHO*, that visits any bigfoot forum or blog or website, who's seen or at least "really believes" in bigfoot/sasquatch, really "cares" what anyone says? Seriously?

Me. Yeah, I'm serious.

And WHY should you?

Because they say it TO me. AT me. ABOUT me. As if they have some kind of authority.

If they keep it in their own house (from which I honorably left in disgust), no problem. But if the most radical of them bring it back to me in a forum genuinely interested in the phenomenon rather than their ideology, isn't that rather offensive?

[GuyInIndiana]

Well, I guess that's what makes us all 'different'. WHen I read the stuff *skeptics* say, especially the *they can't possibly exist* crap, I just quietly smile to myself and chuckle, 'coz to ME, once you're seen one, all they say time and time again, and then again and again, just re-emphasizes to ME, the difference between someone truely being ignorant (which they are) and someone who just wants to argue because it makes them feel important.

Hense, I'm learning to just ignore 'them'.

ETA: I guess what I'm trying to say is, there's just no real point IMO, in caring what 'they' say.

Edited October 3, 2010 by GuyInIndiana

[Huntster]

ETA: I guess what I'm trying to say is, there's just no real point IMO, in caring what 'they' say.

I can understand your position, and I have no problem with it. I guess I'm just tired of them and am more willing to confront their silliness. It would be nice to discuss the topic with believers and skeptics without the denialists repeatedly tossing grenades in the discussion.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

It would be nice to discuss the topic with believers and skeptics without the denialists repeatedly tossing grenades in the discussion.

Being this is Bigfoot Forum that would be nice to do, we might even get a fresh report or two once in a while ~

[Guest]

Sometimes I'd just like to discuss the topic regardless of who speaks up, instead of having to wade through the posts about the people discussing the topic.

So, who's got some new experiences out in the field?