Damning For Skeptics

[Guest]

I submit that it is impossible to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist. The best that a denialist can hope for is that they can influence people into believing that bigfoot doesn't exist.

Of course, that fact will infuriate them all the more.

No. The best a skeptic can hope for is to assert that Bigfoot, although it may exist, is so far unproven. We should continue to operate under the (so far) conclusion that Bigfoot does not exist. BeCAUSE it is unproven. In my opinion such thinking should be the default position on the subject.

Simple. If proof comes that Bigfoot exists, we're all excited and a new frontier is opened and we can all shout from the rooftops that Bigfoot is real.

[Huntster]

No. The best a skeptic can hope for is to assert that Bigfoot, although it may exist, is so far unproven. We should continue to operate under the (so far) conclusion that Bigfoot does not exist. BeCAUSE it is unproven.

1) Isn't that a contradiction?

2) So, if the denialist line is to be taken (bigfoot does not exist), why not just forget the phenomenon and go join a NASCAR forum? What does a denialist hope to achieve by beating believers over the head with their own belief that sasquatches don't exist?

In my opinion such thinking should be the default position on the subject.

Then you are a denialist, not a skeptic. As you correctly stated in your first sentence, "The best a skeptic can hope for is to assert that Bigfoot, although it may exist, is so far unproven." Anybody who states that they do not exist is in denial.

Simple. If proof comes that Bigfoot exists, we're all excited and a new frontier is opened and we can all shout from the rooftops that Bigfoot is real.

Yes. Then there will be few denialists. The current denialists will proudly claim some sort of hollow victory that they were true to their ideology to the end, as if sasquatches never existed until somebody brought forth a carcass and "created" the creature at that moment.

The very idea of it is ridiculous, but I guess they come in all types, and unashamed at that.

[Guest]

Skipped over this:

Being this is the largest Bigfoot Forum on the internet i would suspect maybe evidence of Bigfoot, Welcome to the BFF ~ Elect B ~ Manners seems to be lacking around here lately with the push to prove BF is not real at the top of the agenda.

Thanks! Nice that the forums back up, and yes it does appear naysayers are being quite agressive...

Then it becomes proof, not evidence.

Yep, I was just highlighting the absurdity of the post I quoted originally.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 03 October 2010 - 11:58 AM, said:

Then it becomes proof, not evidence.

Yep, I was just highlighting the absurdity of the post I quoted originally.

Sorry for my confusion.

I agree with your view of the claim.

[Guest River]

Of something? Why ask such a thing?

I think that is an excellent outlook and position to take. Ive seen many specify such sign as "sasquatch evidence" and to me that is still unproven to exist so there is no sasquatch evidence. There is a lot of alleged or suspected sasquatch evidence and the distinction is important. When folks start jumping ahead and tossing that label on things it can be misleading.

[Guest]

If Bigfoot were discovered tomorrow, how much of that "stuff" would become evidence? Isn't it the same, either evidence or not whether or not we know bigfoot exists? If we know bigfoot exists, much of it is likely evidence, but if we don't know it much of it can be evidence, and if we know bigfoot does not exist it cannot be evidence.

So, how do we know whether evidence exists or not. If there are footprints in the woods, that's evidence of sasquatch related activity, isn't it? Whether that sasquatch related activity is sasquatch or hoaxers of sasquatch, right? I guess what I'm saying is how can we know evidence does not exist if we do not know if sasquatch exists? And, if sasquatch becomes known to exist the evidence doesn't immediately become evidence. It was evidence of sasquatch regardless of what we believed it to be before bigfoot was discovered.

That's why I'm not as quick to dismiss "evidence". For me it deserves further study because it's either evidence or it's not, but I don't know yet.

[Guest River]

If Bigfoot were discovered tomorrow, how much of that "stuff" would become evidence? Isn't it the same, either evidence or not whether or not we know bigfoot exists? If we know bigfoot exists, much of it is likely evidence, but if we don't know it much of it can be evidence, and if we know bigfoot does not exist it cannot be evidence.

So, how do we know whether evidence exists or not. If there are footprints in the woods, that's evidence of sasquatch related activity, isn't it? Whether that sasquatch related activity is sasquatch or hoaxers of sasquatch, right? I guess what I'm saying is how can we know evidence does not exist if we do not know if sasquatch exists? And, if sasquatch becomes known to exist the evidence doesn't immediately become evidence. It was evidence of sasquatch regardless of what we believed it to be before bigfoot was discovered.

That's why I'm not as quick to dismiss "evidence". For me it deserves further study because it's either evidence or it's not, but I don't know yet.

I dont think anyone (please correct me if Im wrong) is saying "dismiss" possible evidence. Collect it properly, keep a chain of custody and document all the steps. No one is saying toss out your casts, or hairs or anything that is "possible" evidence. The point I was trying to make is: Until its "proven" to come from sasquatch, its not "sasquatch evidence". In fact if you want to get technical about it we could say its sign of man hoaxing because we could "prove" that theory with clear examples. Thats the whole point.

Its perfectly ok to speculate about what may have produced whatever form of evidence this takes, but to label it as "sasquatch evidence" is not a genuine statement. It could be from unicorns, or spacemen, or devils with curly brown hair but until its properly documented its from an "unknown" source. The only "known source" we have for these footprints are misidentifications and hoaxed foot prints. What "may" or "may not" be sasquatch prints has yet to be seen, so we cannot claim (genuinely) that something is "sasquatch evidence". That would of course depend on the validity of the evidence (which should be proven if it is to be taken seriously)

Heres an excellent question, and a good way to gauge "bigfoot" evidence.

How many bigfoot claims have turned out to be "the real deal"?

How many have panned out into nothing?

Which number is significantly greater? Seeing as none to date have turned out to be real,(ie: "proven") the scales are quite tipped. This is important to consider when making the claim something is "sasquatch evidence". I just wanted to make the distinction.... saying its uknown is more accurate, and a true statement (unless the origin is known)

Edited October 4, 2010 by River

[southernyahoo]

Proof is defined as a cogency of evidence that compells acceptance of the mind of a truth or fact.

The evidence taken individually is not proof, but the cogency that multiple examples creates can be, particularly when dealing with biological evidence, and the amount of data it produces with DNA.

So, expecting any one piece of evidence to be proof is niave. People keep harping that none of the evidence has been proven when it is the evidence that will prove it, if BF exists.

The trick is understanding the cogency, when it is given.

[Guest]

I think that is an excellent outlook and position to take. Ive seen many specify such sign as "sasquatch evidence" and to me that is still unproven to exist so there is no sasquatch evidence. There is a lot of alleged or suspected sasquatch evidence and the distinction is important. When folks start jumping ahead and tossing that label on things it can be misleading.

Thanks.

I want to add thoughts on the evidence of the "what". The "what" is a premise, and since this is a BF board, the premise is that it's evidence of a BF. I don't see any problem with that, as that is the foundation for potential discovery. The problem I have is people asserting as fact that it can't be evidence of a BF. What's the big deal about saying it's evidence of BF? It hasn't been proven that BF doesn't exist, so that position isn't somehow any more valid, as much as some people convince themselves it is.

The tearing down of the research simply because a disbelief in the premise is the antithesis of scientific discovery.

[Guest]

"I dont think anyone (please correct me if Im wrong) is saying "dismiss" possible evidence. Collect it properly, keep a chain of custody and document all the steps. No one is saying toss out your casts, or hairs or anything that is "possible" evidence. The point I was trying to make is: Until its "proven" to come from sasquatch, its not "sasquatch evidence". In fact if you want to get technical about it we could say its sign of man hoaxing because we could "prove" that theory with clear examples. Thats the whole point."

A lot of people dismiss possible evidence; although you may not. I think that's pretty clear.

I guess my stance is it's possible sasquatch evidence. It doesn't ever become sasquatch evidence after the fact, after it's proven. It's either sasquatch evidence yesterday, today and tomorrow, or it isn't (meaning it was made/created/belongs to a sasquatch or it isn't/doesn't). Footprints for example were either made by a sasquatch or they weren't. If we don't know what made them, or if they were possibly made by a sasquatch, then they are possible sasquatch evidence. If a sasquatch walks in the woods and leaves prints and we find them, they don't become sasquatch evidence after we find out what made them. They are sasquatch evidence the day they were made. My opinion is my own of course.

[Guest COGrizzly]

Why would I assume after seeing a 18 inch foot print in the woods that this would be sign of sasquatch, and that it mustve left this track?

Why Ben? Because all other explanations can be ruled out. I hear ya. I understand your opinion. But, I still cannot explain the tracks I saw (and many others that saw the same tracks have the same opinion as mine) I still question those tracks, yet still cannot explain them. Tough position to be in, ya know?

[Guest]

I have no problem believing when some evidence is brought in that is not only palpable its authenticity is indisputable. Why would I believe it if that was not the case?

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.

4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.

Seriously though, until there is proof that any sasquatch makes just one print - its foolish (imho) to consider it as sasquatch evidence.

Both of the above PLUS:

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

To date it is manufactored, fabricated, or mis-identified. Im willing to change my opinion on that any day just like you stated opinions about those particular (Wallace) casts were considered fake. I consider them all fake until one is proven to be real.

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.

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

By the way, I assume you are familiar with the White Mountain Apache Reservation case (among others) where we have physical evidence PLUS eyewitness testimony by reliable people (LEOs) in official documentation under penalty of perjury?

It doesn't get more reliable than that.

Skeptic? Sure.

No...psuedoskeptic.

Is that such a bad position to take?

Yes, because it is intellectually dishonest.

Also seems like wildlife officials would repsond in a reasonable way given the right evidence. Its just not there.

Which is why certain people of credential vis a vis Bigfoot are giving lectures to the USFS...

I do think if anyone brings for real evidence

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

[Guest]

No. The best a skeptic can hope for is to assert that Bigfoot, although it may exist, is so far unproven. We should continue to operate under the (so far) conclusion that Bigfoot does not exist. BeCAUSE it is unproven. In my opinion such thinking should be the default position on the subject.

And THAT statement forever marks you as a true psuedoskeptic, not a legitimate skeptic.

[Drew]

Wouldn't it be Ironic, if Bigfoot were discovered tomorrow, and it was a hairless, sea mammal, whose feet had 6 toes, and it smelled of lavender?

Then the 'bigfoot evidence' would not be evidence of Bigfoot, even if bigfoot was discovered.

Edited October 5, 2010 by Drew

[Guest]

And THAT statement forever marks you as a true psuedoskeptic, not a legitimate skeptic.

I beg to differ my friend. I look at it this way, in the court of law, you may know, or feel the defendant is guilty, but the evidence presented just isn't strong enough to convict. Innocent(un-proven) until proven guilty(real). Atleast that's how I see it.