What's A Skeptic?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

In the lower photo there seems to be some skin prints just under were the toes would be.

[indiefoot]

Maybe this helps bring out the "ridges". I don't know if they can be transfered to a cast or if they are too fragile. But I think they can be saved in a footprint if the medium is right.

Edited September 29, 2010 by indiefoot

[Guest TooRisky]

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. Therefore, I see no justification in conducting my own specific investigation other than as part of the survey work I do for any other wildlife species. If bigfoot is ever discovered, I will have ample justification for my prior position in that no other large mammal species in the history of human exploration had been as widespread, and yet as elusive, as bigfoot. I will have been proven wrong in that position, but that doesn't mean that position was unjustified given the data at hand when it was formulated.

The first part is very convincing, except for the fact that the "overwhelming evidence" that has been found and recorded is in play... can we deny the evidence just because we don't believe... ???

You are one of many scientist... you have never seen nor looked for this species... or am I wrong and please correct me... thus with your deduction there is no species... Absolutely incredibly irresponsible and **** close to me having to know who and what higher education you are representing... Yes Saskeptic it is time to come out of hiding and be as honest as I and many others on this subject... Your silence in hiding is damning in the reality that you sir are not who you say you are...

[Drew]

Saskeptic can remain anonymous, you need to decide whether you can accept his input or not. He is not under any obligation to do so. You are free to disregard his input however.

[Guest TooRisky]

Saskeptic can remain anonymous, you need to decide whether you can accept his input or not. He is not under any obligation to do so. You are free to disregard his input however.

Wow where did this come from... All I ask is this man to confirm his credentials and come out in public with his very well know but unsubstantiated beliefs... Seems the man can walk the walk, but cant confirm his status as he asks other to do... Calling BS on Saskeptik... are you really a qualified scientist... And where do you teach...???

[Guest rockinkt]

Wow where did this come from... All I ask is this man to confirm his credentials and come out in public with his very well know but unsubstantiated beliefs... Seems the man can walk the walk, but cant confirm his status as he asks other to do... Calling BS on Saskeptik... are you really a qualified scientist... And where do you teach...???

I'm calling BS on your story about your cousin, aunt... brother, or whatever relative you choose to use in your fabricated Mt. St. Helens story. Neener neener neener!

You are attempting to bully and intimidate a person whose knowledge far outweighs yours in Biology and Science. If you cannot respond in an intelligent manner to his logical and well thought out posts - at least attempt to hold your temper and stop the personal attacks!

[Guest rockinkt]

Edit.

Those are not tracks that indicate anything that was living and moving made them. Period.

Edited September 29, 2010 by rockinkt

[Guest]

This guy rocks, Professor Marcello Truzi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi

He was one of the founders of the modern skeptical movement and he is credited with coining the term pseudo-skepticism. He has written quite a bit on the subject.

Points courtesy of Proff Truzi,

Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic:

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.

2. Double standards in the application of criticism.

3. The making of judgments without full inquiry.

4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.

5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.

6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.

7. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.

8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.

9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.

10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.

11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.

12. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.

13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).

14. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.

15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.

16. No references to reputable journal material.

17. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.

Holy Frak! That's most of the "skeptics" on this forum!

True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics

A. Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.

B. Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things

C. Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides

D. Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions

E. Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own

F. Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim

G. Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides

H. Acknowledges valid convincing evidence

I. Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason

J. Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence

I prefer the term "objective" to that of skeptic for these people.

[Guest]

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.

So you've got the evidence to hand that they ARE there (and have been videoed) yet you still maintain they are NOT there?

See the post about psuedo-skepticism on page 1...

Well, it'd be nice if someone with a real background in primate foot anatomy would lead that charge, rather than uncritically accepting footprints as authentic. . .

4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.

5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.

It would be tough, though. Remember, this is a phenomenon in which hoaxing should be the default explanation

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.

I'd be surprised if there weren't people who've already perfected techniques for making some kind of fine "fingerprint" pattern in bigfoot prints.

15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.

Edit.

Those are not tracks that indicate anything that was living and moving made them. Period.

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.

3. The making of judgments without full inquiry.

4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate

9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims

12. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.

13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).

15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Mulder

[Guest]

I'm going to step in here before things spiral out of control. Some of the posts are beginning to be too personal in nature and that is not acceptable by any stretch of the imagination.

I expect, from this post on, that things will take a different turn. If not, then I will take other action that I deem necessary without any manner of hesitation.

Nobody has the right to demand personal info from another member. In fact, I would highly suggest that nobody reveal personal info. If you guys knew the stuff myself and staff deal with on a daily basis, you would have a better understanding of why personal info should not be disclosed.

TooRisky, it isn't your place to call BS on Saskeptic or anyone else for offering their opinion. Just as I advised you through PM to not reveal the identity of yourself or your relative, I'm advising Saskeptic to keep his personal info private as well.

And rockinit, it isn't your place to call BS on any relative of TooRisky's. The neener, neener, neener bit is kind of childish as well.

Address, debate, or confront the content of a post, as opposed to the member who made it.

That goes for everyone regardless of which side of the fence you reside.

Don't force me to go all Moderator/postal on you guys.

[indiefoot]

Because one of the prints was 10X 5, it fell within human range so I have remained cautious about their origin. I am posting them to show that ridge detail can be left behind.

[Huntster]

Because one of the prints was 10X 5, it fell within human range so I have remained cautious about their origin. I am posting them to show that ridge detail can be left behind.

And I thank you profusely. It can't be argued that those "ridges" are "casting artifacts".

[Guest]

Isn't that a bear?

[indiefoot]

There has not been a bear reported inN.E. Kansas to my knowledge. I've lived here the best part of 58 years and have not heard of a sighting. The original image files of footprints taken that day are here.

http://s827.photobucket.com/albums/zz197/indiefoot/Footprint%20Originals/

[Guest]

I thought they looked a bit beary too. Should be pretty easy to figure out. I see a narrow heel and what look like claw marks at least.

But northeastern Kansas? Ugh, more prairie bigfoots. I just did a little Google mapping of the northeastern corner (north of I-70 and east of Manhattan), and I see some narrow strips of forest in a matrix of agricultural production (both crops and rangeland). Does this really look like a landscape that supports bigfoots but can't support bears?