What's A Skeptic?

[MagniAesir]

The problem has not been, and is not currently that people are skeptical of presented evidence.

Rather it is and has been the fact that most assumed evidence of sasquatch involvement or proof of sasquztch'x existence falls dramatically short of the mark. And is not actually evidence of anything. The BFF has proven this out over and over during the years. And it is something that myself and our group who investigate reports of this creature keep well in mind.

Momentary highjack

Hey from a fellow lower mainlander

[MagniAesir]

Back to the thread:

My thoughts are skeptics fall into various categories. Let's classify skeptics who believes BF does not exist as a major skeptic. They believe all evidence is flawed or hoaxed since BF does not exist. They can spot hoaxes a mile off, they are reapectful, and they contribute to the knowledge bank. Then we have the mocker skeptic. They get a charge out of ridiculing evidence and believers. Some of them hoax evidence. They have a negative impact on the effort to prove BF. Now we have minor skeptics who are cautious, and they believe there is lots of hoaxed evidence, but they believe BF exist. Now we have the nonskeptic who can easily be fooled by faked evidence since they really want BF to be proven quickly. They believe that most researchers are honest.

I think this may be part of the problem.

I do not believe sasquatch currently or in the past existed (I recall someone thinking that they may have recently become extinct)

I believe this puts me in the skeptic category.

Here is my belief on evidence;

1. Small percentage are hoaxes

2. Some evidence is not real (not hoaxes), however the presenter very much wishes it were real. Perhaps believe too much may explain why they think it is evidence.

3. Some evidence is flawed

4. I don't know. I will use my personal approach here. An eye witness claims they had a sighting, it passes the bs test. I can't explain away their sighting (i.e. mis-identification), so I may have to say "at this time I don't know what they saw". I have seen other types of evidence, that to me is not evidence of the existence of sasquatch, however because I can't explain it away it goes into the "I don't know file". The I don't know file has to be periodically re-examined to see if new technology and/or information can explain it.

[Guest River]

The problem has not been, and is not currently that people are skeptical of presented evidence.

Rather it is and has been the fact that most assumed evidence of sasquatch involvement or proof of sasquztch'x existence falls dramatically short of the mark. And is not actually evidence of anything. The BFF has proven this out over and over during the years. And it is something that myself and our group who investigate reports of this creature keep well in mind.

Excellent reply. (a +1 from me, the only one I've given so far) I think many proponents get angry or frustrated because of this. It's not the person/proponents job to make something out of nothing. Good or rather valid evidence will speak for itself. It won't require wishful thinking or any posturing to get the attention of the scientific community either. They will be all over it. I think this is a point that is important to make. Often I believe that proponents will take the position that science is not listening - that scientists would push away any evidence valid or not.

The simple fact is, there currently is nothing on the books so to speak. It's not that there might be "potential" evidence already gathered, or "possible" dna evidence, or "unidentified" primate hairs. There's tons of that. Take a look at the media, and television shows geared towards hype with no beef. Some of the shows are quite entertaining, but they are not helping by giving out those ambiguous terms. It is that type of exposure that leads to misinformation more often than not. Sure, it gets the ratings, and the dollars flowing for the entertainment industry. (not a bad thing!) How many times can you cry wolf before people start scratching their heads and applying some critical thinking skills.

(i guess we will see)

How many more Wallaces, Pattersons, Freemans, Standings, before avowed proponents start becoming skeptics themselves. I've seen it happen on this forum many times. (old and new version) As they should too... there are far more "cash grabs" in this business than "real" substantial evidence. (considering bigfoot remains uncataloged that is loud and clear) And make no mistake, it is a business. I think if you take a look at all of the well known bigfoot claims, as far as coming to the media with claims... how many of them turned out to be "the real deal"? (as Bicardi would say)

I think we know the answer. This is why - all claims and evidence should be examined from a skeptical perspective while actively applying critical thinking skills. Lets not throw away anything, but rather take a closer look. What's really there?

I hope more proponents will eventually move towards this perspective as time goes on and more of the "real deals" turn out to be more of a pie in the face of the believer.

Edited November 10, 2010 by River

[Guest]

The problem has not been, and is not currently that people are skeptical of presented evidence.

Rather it is and has been the fact that most assumed evidence of sasquatch involvement or proof of sasquztch'x existence falls dramatically short of the mark. And is not actually evidence of anything.

Not true. The evidence is strong and getting stronger, despite the Denialist headwind generated by "science", as courageous, intellectually honest researchers like Dr Meldrum and his colleagues apply ever more careful scrutiny and new scientific techniques to building the documentation of BF.

[Guest]

I consider myself a Bigfoot doubter. I believe this is a reasonable position because the evidence for Bigfoot, while large in quantity, is none-the-less circumstantial. It is evidence of a secondary nature that, in principle, is open to explanation by appealing to human error or hoaxing. I'm not a cynic or "scoftic" and I'm open to the possibility of Bigfoot existence, even as I doubt.

I understand the appeal of the Bigfoot phenomena. The Bigfoot evidence is secondary in nature (primary evidence would be evidence that leads us to conclude, uncontroversially, Bigfoot exists), yet it is also mundane. Given that this evidence is mundane, it mimics the commonplace. This seems to cause all sorts of ill feeling among Bigfoot enthusiasts and skeptics trying to explain the phenomena. On one hand, evidence for Bigfoot seems to be as mundane as evidence of moose in certain areas of the country. If your neighbor tells you on his trip through Maine he saw a moose crossing the road, and that he stopped to take pictures of its tracks found on the side of the road, we would not necessary be doubtful of his story, on its face. On the other hand, if your neighbor tells you he saw a giant, bipedal ape crossing the road in Maine, and he photographed giant human-like footprints on the side of the road, we would not necessarily believe he saw what he said he saw (unless we have been acclimated by Bigfoot advocates to find such a sighting unremarkable). Why is this?

The obvious answer is that we do not have giant bipedal apes native to North America in our zoos, or their pelts in our museums or in private collections, or their skeletal remains on display, not even a single bone, or incontrovertible film or video of this giant ape, nor do we have common knowledge of such animals reflected in the journals written by the wave of pioneers settling the continent over the last few centuries, nor do we have any fossil primate found to date in North America, excepting the human primate, nor do we have a dead Bigfoot unfortunately crossing a road at the wrong time, and no dead ape brought out of the bush, either complete or in pieces , because of a hunter who got lucky or one who showed his skill, nor do we have any definitive evidence arising from the many searches and expeditions of adventurers, scientists, monster hunters, and literally hundreds of others who have moved through the woods in search of Bigfoot, nor have these proposed apes ever been tracked down by professional trackers and their canines, not to mention that there is no other animal known to exist that is analogous to the curious admixture of grizzly bear size, ape-like torso, human-like legs and feet, elusive and reclusive and hidden, yet making banshee screams loud and clear in the night, that define the animal physically. Most of the above is inconprehensible IF we take the eyewitness evidence for Bigfoot at face value; that is, reports that would place giant, unknown apes in virtually every state of the union, and in places remote and in places well traveled by humans.

Still, we have tracks, the Patterson film, and countless sightings by people from all walks of life. The mundane aspect of the evidence is seductive and should cause us to wonder----is there really NOTHING there?

[Guest]

^That, is a reasonably balanced post. You don't see many of those on the skeptic side. I don't agree with many of your interpretations and claims, but it's fairly said.

I gave it a plus.

The usual suspects around here could learn something from you.

[Huntster]

....On one hand, evidence for Bigfoot seems to be as mundane as evidence of moose in certain areas of the country. If your neighbor tells you on his trip through Maine he saw a moose crossing the road, and that he stopped to take pictures of its tracks found on the side of the road, we would not necessary be doubtful of his story, on its face. On the other hand, if your neighbor tells you he saw a giant, bipedal ape crossing the road in Maine, and he photographed giant human-like footprints on the side of the road, we would not necessarily believe he saw what he said he saw (unless we have been acclimated by Bigfoot advocates to find such a sighting unremarkable). Why is this?

Likelihood and education.

What if that same neighbor took a trip to Yuma, AZ, and told you that a moose crossed on the highway in front of him as he drove south toward San Luis Rio Colorado? Or if he had seen an alligator cross the road in front of him in Maine?

I suspect you would either disbelieve him, or you'd think that they were animals brought there and released/escaped.

With sasquatch, we know that bipedal apes or primitive hominids existed in Earth's past, and as recently as 24,000 years ago (and, in the case of Homo floresiensis, even much more recently).

Why not now (for the last of the dying population) or in the most recent past?

....nor do we have any definitive evidence arising from the many searches and expeditions of adventurers, scientists, monster hunters, and literally hundreds of others who have moved through the woods in search of Bigfoot

How many of these "searches" have been conducted? Were they conducted in the proper habitat? (Looking for moose in Arizona?) How long for each search? (wildlife managers call those hunter-days) How many animals are available to discover? (Nobody knows). Were searches conducted when they hibernated? (Nobody knows).

Indeed, nobody even knows the answers to the above questions I posed because the entire effort has been relegated to amateurs, no comprehensive database has been compiled on either testimony and reports, but even of search effort/search locations/ etc.

The appropriate people aren't in the game. Period.

[southernyahoo]

I consider myself a Bigfoot doubter. I believe this is a reasonable position because the evidence for Bigfoot, while large in quantity, is none-the-less circumstantial. It is evidence of a secondary nature that, in principle, is open to explanation by appealing to human error or hoaxing. I'm not a cynic or "scoftic" and I'm open to the possibility of Bigfoot existence, even as I doubt.

I understand the appeal of the Bigfoot phenomena. The Bigfoot evidence is secondary in nature (primary evidence would be evidence that leads us to conclude, uncontroversially, Bigfoot exists), yet it is also mundane. Given that this evidence is mundane, it mimics the commonplace. This seems to cause all sorts of ill feeling among Bigfoot enthusiasts and skeptics trying to explain the phenomena. On one hand, evidence for Bigfoot seems to be as mundane as evidence of moose in certain areas of the country. If your neighbor tells you on his trip through Maine he saw a moose crossing the road, and that he stopped to take pictures of its tracks found on the side of the road, we would not necessary be doubtful of his story, on its face. On the other hand, if your neighbor tells you he saw a giant, bipedal ape crossing the road in Maine, and he photographed giant human-like footprints on the side of the road, we would not necessarily believe he saw what he said he saw (unless we have been acclimated by Bigfoot advocates to find such a sighting unremarkable). Why is this?

The obvious answer is that we do not have giant bipedal apes native to North America in our zoos, or their pelts in our museums or in private collections, or their skeletal remains on display, not even a single bone, or incontrovertible film or video of this giant ape, nor do we have common knowledge of such animals reflected in the journals written by the wave of pioneers settling the continent over the last few centuries, nor do we have any fossil primate found to date in North America, excepting the human primate, nor do we have a dead Bigfoot unfortunately crossing a road at the wrong time, and no dead ape brought out of the bush, either complete or in pieces , because of a hunter who got lucky or one who showed his skill, nor do we have any definitive evidence arising from the many searches and expeditions of adventurers, scientists, monster hunters, and literally hundreds of others who have moved through the woods in search of Bigfoot, nor have these proposed apes ever been tracked down by professional trackers and their canines, not to mention that there is no other animal known to exist that is analogous to the curious admixture of grizzly bear size, ape-like torso, human-like legs and feet, elusive and reclusive and hidden, yet making banshee screams loud and clear in the night, that define the animal physically. Most of the above is inconprehensible IF we take the eyewitness evidence for Bigfoot at face value; that is, reports that would place giant, unknown apes in virtually every state of the union, and in places remote and in places well traveled by humans.

Still, we have tracks, the Patterson film, and countless sightings by people from all walks of life. The mundane aspect of the evidence is seductive and should cause us to wonder----is there really NOTHING there?

I agree with Mulder, a very well balanced and fair assesment of the entire phenomenon. Welcome to the BFF jerrywayne.

[Trogluddite]

Not sure if the issue of the appropriate role/definition of skepticism has been aired out in the Forums .... 

[Twist]

I'll apologize upfront, I do not know how to properly quote bits and pieces of a post so I did the best I could to make it clear.  

 

Likelihood and education.

What if that same neighbor took a trip to Yuma, AZ, and told you that a moose crossed on the highway in front of him as he drove south toward San Luis Rio Colorado? Or if he had seen an alligator cross the road in front of him in Maine?

I suspect you would either disbelieve him, or you'd think that they were animals brought there and released/escaped. 

 

Somewhat different situation,  BF are reported to be in all parts of the contiguous United State and Canada. Moose are not. 

 

With sasquatch, we know that bipedal apes or primitive hominids existed in Earth's past, and as recently as 24,000 years ago (and, in the case of Homo floresiensis, even much more recently).

Why not now (for the last of the dying population) or in the most recent past?

 

Bipedal apes, and hominids in the past are in no way proof or evidence that something as such may exist today.  For myself, if nothing else, the fact that most evidence for a bipedal primate that could have been in NA, AKA,  Giganto @ 100,000 years ago works against this idea.  Why such a gap in the "records"

 

Homo floresiensis is believed to be smaller than modern man, proof that a hominid can be smaller than modern man is not evidence or proof that one currently exist that is 50% larger, only that variance is possible, not guaranteed. 

 

How long for each search? (wildlife managers call those hunter-days) How many animals are available to discover? (Nobody knows). Were searches conducted when they hibernated? (Nobody knows). 

 

A scientific search does not have to be looking for BF to find proof, so overall, there have been NUMEROUS searches that could have turned up evidence of a BF.  Settlers came to this land and settled it and never came up with proof of a massive bipedal ape, but we found, beaver, fox, coyote, woodchucks etc.   We do not have to "search" for something to find it.  If it is out there it usually "pops" up eventually.  If we are to accept "anecdotal" evidence for this creature we cannot cherry pick it, therefore, if reports show it exists in the contiguous US, given the animal observations and research done we should have....something.....

Indeed, nobody even knows the answers to the above questions I posed because the entire effort has been relegated to amateurs, no comprehensive database has been compiled on either testimony and reports, but even of search effort/search locations/ etc.

The appropriate people aren't in the game. Period.

 

My take is the search has not been left up to amateurs.  A researcher in the woods, who is set up to photograph and record observations of a Ivory billed Woodpecker (thought extinct), a wolverine (around 300 known in the lower 48), or a Grizzly Bear (around 1500 known in the lower 48) would or could observe a BF in similar habitat.  Just because you look for one animal does not make you blind to others around you.  I would think if a scientist had irrefutable evidence of a bipedal primate they would come forward.  Ridicule or not, HD proof would stand on its own.  

[kitakaze]

 

Somewhat different situation,  BF are reported to be in all parts of the contiguous United State and Canada. Moose are not. 

  

 

Strikingly similar to ghosts and UFO's...

 

Which looks just like this...

And this...

 

 

 

 

Bipedal apes, and hominids in the past are in no way proof or evidence that something as such may exist today.  For myself, if nothing else, the fact that most evidence for a bipedal primate that could have been in NA, AKA,  Giganto @ 100,000 years ago works against this idea.  Why such a gap in the "records"

 

 

The manner of locomotion for gigantopithecus remains currently unknown based on the scant fossil remains we have. Do not try to hijack the scientific process, make Bigfootery memes and pretend their is consensus where there is not. 

 

http://retrieverman.net/2012/01/18/why-bigfoot-cannot-be-gigantopithecus/