What's A Skeptic?

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 24 September 2010 - 07:16 AM, said:

Do you gamble much at casinos?

Was in Las Vegas for a conference once a few years ago. I believe that over 4 nights I spent a grand total of $0.00 gambling. I'm a very cautious individual, Huntster.

I'm more calculating. I'll dabble with the better odds like blackjack, and even a little roulette, but will use mathematically proven strategies that keep my odds high. And I've done well with it, even though I hate Vegas/Nevada (my wife/kids go there often, and I won't go with them). I once won a blackjack tournament on a cruise ship, and the winnings paid my extensive alcohol bill..............

One thing I won't gamble with, however, is my professional responsibility. If I even get a hint that inaction will leave me in a position of professional jeopardy, I'll act, if even just to shift that responsibility to somebody else (it works every time...........somebody out there will let it slide, and if it comes back to bite somebody, it'll be him/her.....).

Our prime rib dinner wager is by far the most extravagant bet I've ever made. Sure would be fun to lose that one.

Even winning that one would be fun for you if the dinner is here. There would be much more I'd treat you to. The fishing alone would be worth the trip.

But you can't win. You can never prove that there is no sasquatch.

Your inexperience with gambling shows..........

[Will]

Hunster great post

We are finally getting to the heart of this.

People and governments are going to have to answer for there decisions.

This is going to be a very big deal, since it was right under there nose.

Edited September 24, 2010 by will

[Guest]

If someone reports finding a pupulation of Ivory Billed Wood Peckers in the LA. swamps, are you going to be all over that?

I supported one of my students to participate in the search following the initial announcement, and I initially was quite hopeful that the announcement was accurate. I still find the Luneau video compelling, but the fact that intensive survey efforts failed to produce any better evidence leaves me inclined to believe that the Ivorybills have been gone for as long as we thought they were.

[Guest ajciani]

Why can't the justification for not believing in bigfoot be simply that the evidence for it is unconvincing? That's the first definition in the OP.

I'm a scientist. I've considered the evidence. I question the validity of that evidence, and I'm unconvinced by it.

I'm also a scientist. I've considered the evidence. There is a lot of garbage to wade through. There is evidence that is laughable, evidence that might have been good if it was collected better, and there is evidence that is quite convincing. Even so, I can see Saskeptic's dismissal of all of it being justifiable. Maybe not well justifiable, but well enough that I wouldn't call him (and others like him) a scoffer.

Why do we have a different take on the evidence? It probably relates to what we deal with in our normal research.

Saskeptic probably deals with a lot of direct observation. Either it was seen or it wasn't. It is or it isn't.

I have to deal with a lot of indirect evidence. What I need to ascertain is inferred from its effects on the environment. I measure those effects, and then try to determine what caused them. I have to figure out what else might have caused them, and how to differentiate between everything else and the thing I want to know about.

So Saskeptic looks at the individual pieces of evidence and says, "there is nothing to say THAT was caused by a bigfoot, it could have been caused by other." The end result is, there is no evidence. I look at the collection of evidence and say, "a population of bigfoots would be a good explanation and doesn't seem to be counter-indicated, disorganized hoaxing could be an explanation too, but seems less likely, and organized hoaxing and mass delusions would be a real stretch. Improper attribution of individual observations to bigfoot, when they were clearly the result of another species, hoaxing, or natural happenstance is a significant issue."

[Guest]

I'm also a scientist. I've considered the evidence.

OK, so are you actively involved in the collection of physical evidence of bigfoot? If not, why not? If so, then why is it necessary for me to do so as well?

I get a lot of mud slung at me on the BFF for wasting my field skills on known species rather than using them to find bigfoot. I'm just sharin' the love!

[Huntster]

I supported one of my students to participate in the search following the initial announcement, and I initially was quite hopeful that the announcement was accurate. I still find the Luneau video compelling, but the fact that intensive survey efforts failed to produce any better evidence leaves me inclined to believe that the Ivorybills have been gone for as long as we thought they were.

What did you find "compelling" about the Luneau video?

Compelling:

1. tending to compel; overpowering: compelling reasons.

2.having a powerful and irresistible effect; requiring acute admiration, attention, or respect: a man of compelling integrity; a compelling drama.

For the record, although it appears that I rail against the funding for the ivory billed woodpecker search, I don't. I fully support funding for Cornell (or any other qualified people) to perform the search, and even after these few years of no success I support further funding for continued searching. What I oppose is funding for locking up lands for ivory billed woodpecker habitat before we confirm that they do, indeed, still exist (which was done to the tune of several million dollars), and I use the funding/search as a contrast to the official lack of the same with regard to sasquatchery.

[Huntster]

I get a lot of mud slung at me on the BFF for wasting my field skills on known species rather than using them to find bigfoot. I'm just sharin' the love!

I hope you know that while I'm challenging you intensely, I still love ya'. I do not in any way, shape, or form believe you are "wasting your field skills on known species rather than using them to find bigfoot."

[Guest]

What did you find "compelling" about the Luneau video?

I'll be brief so as not to derail, but when I examine the video frame by frame there are stills that look to me to provide an image that is a better match for Ivory-billed Woodpecker than for Pileated Woodpecker. On the flipside, there are probably just as many stills that look more Pileated than Ivory-billed. When I run the video at full speed, the subject does appear subtley different in flight than how I typically encounter Pileateds, and I've flushed several of those at close range.

[southernyahoo]

I'm also a scientist. I've considered the evidence. There is a lot of garbage to wade through. There is evidence that is laughable, evidence that might have been good if it was collected better, and there is evidence that is quite convincing. Even so, I can see Saskeptic's dismissal of all of it being justifiable. Maybe not well justifiable, but well enough that I wouldn't call him (and others like him) a scoffer.

Why do we have a different take on the evidence? It probably relates to what we deal with in our normal research.

Saskeptic probably deals with a lot of direct observation. Either it was seen or it wasn't. It is or it isn't.

I have to deal with a lot of indirect evidence. What I need to ascertain is inferred from its effects on the environment. I measure those effects, and then try to determine what caused them. I have to figure out what else might have caused them, and how to differentiate between everything else and the thing I want to know about.

So Saskeptic looks at the individual pieces of evidence and says, "there is nothing to say THAT was caused by a bigfoot, it could have been caused by other." The end result is, there is no evidence. I look at the collection of evidence and say, "a population of bigfoots would be a good explanation and doesn't seem to be counter-indicated, disorganized hoaxing could be an explanation too, but seems less likely, and organized hoaxing and mass delusions would be a real stretch. Improper attribution of individual observations to bigfoot, when they were clearly the result of another species, hoaxing, or natural happenstance is a significant issue."

Interesting,

You sound like an ecologist.

In response to the bolded part, fortunately in some cases there is physical evidence connected with the observations, but to Huntsters point, the average Joe making these observations and collecting the evidence is powerless to actually prove what it belongs to. The science and the degree of investigation on that evidence costs much more than any amatuer enthusiast could squeeze from his budget.

[Guest]

Isn't a skeptic a nonbeliever? I'm not quite seeing the distinction between the two. I think maybe there is a distinction between "being skeptical" and being a "Skeptic."

For Many here who I consider "Skeptics", they do not judge very charitably. Instead of trying to think of explanations pro and con, they immediately start throwing out all the reasons why this piece of evidence is not from a BF. For example if dermal ridges were mentioned they would immediately attack the idea because of the work of Matt Crowley. What they don't do is ask questions like, "Are dermal ridges possible to cast? Didn't Matt Crowley say that the effects he documented only occurred under certain conditions? Are there any casts that may show dermals that were not in the conditions he described?" Etc. This would help show that the Skeptic was trying to work with the "believers" to find good evidence rather than just shoot everything down.

People who are skeptical but open to the idea, try there best to see both sides. They don't seem to have a priori ruled it out.

Orang

[Guest ajciani]

By definition, someone being skeptical is a skeptic. Interestingly, being a skeptic isn't necessarily determined by believing or not. Someone could believe that bigfoot exists, but be skeptical of some witness reports or individual findings from the field.

I think what is being attempted in this thread is to differentiate skeptics from scoffers. One of the problems is that there are people who call themselves skeptics, but who are really scoffers. And yes, the difference is that a skeptic will look at those dermal ridges and ask, "how do we really know those are dermal ridges, and not some weird effect from the casting method?" The scoffer will just say, "yeah right. That's just from the plaster folding on itself. Next piece of evidence to debunk please." Of course, the scoffer never realizes that they failed to debunk the first piece.

[Guest rockinkt]

By definition, someone being skeptical is a skeptic. Interestingly, being a skeptic isn't necessarily determined by believing or not. Someone could believe that bigfoot exists, but be skeptical of some witness reports or individual findings from the field.

I think what is being attempted in this thread is to differentiate skeptics from scoffers. One of the problems is that there are people who call themselves skeptics, but who are really scoffers. And yes, the difference is that a skeptic will look at those dermal ridges and ask, "how do we really know those are dermal ridges, and not some weird effect from the casting method?" The scoffer will just say, "yeah right. That's just from the plaster folding on itself. Next piece of evidence to debunk please." Of course, the scoffer never realizes that they failed to debunk the first piece.

OOPS!!!! You posted "...will look at those dermal ridges..."

Seems like you have already come to the conclusion that what you are seeing are actually dermal ridges when there is no valid evidence to state that. That is very unscientific.

[Guest BCCryptid]

You know, since the new forums have emerged, I have been reading a lot of the posts and have some to realize that the term skeptic is not being used in it's true form. A lot of posts use skeptic to mean someone who adamantly refuses to believe in the possibility of BF's existence.

Things seem to be divided into basically two groups, believers and skeptics. There really are three groups though.

Believers, Skeptics, and Non-believers.

Skeptic definition:

skep·tic   

[skep-tik]

–noun

1.

a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

2.

a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.

3.

a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.

As you can see, the way skeptic is sometimes being used, it is actually being used to describe a non-believer.

I'm not advocating any one stance, just that if we lump the skeptics and non-believers in one group, we are doing a disservice to both groups.

Just sayin.

I don't like the term 'non-believer', I believe the term you are looking for is 'debunker'.

[Old Dog]

I don't like the term 'non-believer', I believe the term you are looking for is 'debunker'.

No, the term I was looking for is Non-believer. You can be a Believer, a Skeptic, or a Non-believer and still debunk something.

To debunk is to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated.

The act of debunking a claim has nothing to do with your initial stance on a subject. Your stance however can have a very large influence on how much fervor you apply to the debunking.

[Incorrigible1]

OOPS!!!! You posted "...will look at those dermal ridges..."

Seems like you have already come to the conclusion that what you are seeing are actually dermal ridges when there is no valid evidence to state that. That is very unscientific.

Grammar patrol duty is beneath you.