Damning For Skeptics

[Guest]

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

Mark me whatever you will. Labels don't bother me at all.

It is only logical to assume Bigfoot, Nessie or the Chupa does not exist until they are proven to exist. Collect "evidence", go out, as I have done, into the field and research (and many, many here have/does). I've made casts and found possible bedding too. I consider that data as, well, data. Since I have no proven Bigfoot evidence I cannot compare what I've collected to "known" Bigfoot evidence. Until Bigfoot is proven and I can compare what I have to known Bigfoot tracks, I cannot conclude honestly that what I have is genuine. I'm not sure I understand the confusion.

[Huntster]

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.

This is the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on any BFF thread.

So, the next unknown sea creature to be discovered should be called "Bigfoot" in order to satisfy Drew's need to discount "sasquatch evidence" as sasquatch evidence? Perhaps we can conversely state that the recent new video footage of what had previously been described as a giant squid is, in reality, a bigfoot.

Such truck could only come from a denialist in desperation.

[Guest]

It is only logical to assume Bigfoot, Nessie or the Chupa does not exist until they are proven to exist. Collect "evidence", go out, as I have done, into the field and research (and many, many here have/does). I've made casts and found possible bedding too. I consider that data as, well, data. Since I have no proven Bigfoot evidence I cannot compare what I've collected to "known" Bigfoot evidence. Until Bigfoot is proven and I can compare what I have to known Bigfoot tracks, I cannot conclude honestly that what I have is genuine. I'm not sure I understand the confusion.

You are employing circular reasoning, to wit: "There is no evidence for BF. Therefore BF is unproven. therefore any evidence FOR BF is invalid because BF is unproven and the evidence unverifiable. Therefore there is no evidence for BF."

This is another mark of the psuedoskeptic.

[Drew]

This is the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on any BFF thread.

So, the next unknown sea creature to be discovered should be called "Bigfoot" in order to satisfy Drew's need to discount "sasquatch evidence" as sasquatch evidence? Perhaps we can conversely state that the recent new video footage of what had previously been described as a giant squid is, in reality, a bigfoot.

Such truck could only come from a denialist in desperation.

Of course it was ridiculous. Many times, Ironic statements are ridiculous in nature.

The question was "wouldn't it be ironic if?" not, "What if Bigfoot was really a sea mammal?"

I think I will start a thread called "how to interpret ironic statements"

[Huntster]

I think I will start a thread called "how to interpret ironic statements"

And I think that would be a great place for you to spend your input.

[Guest River]

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

All this "pseudoskeptic" stuff cracks me up. Is this what you present when you dont like what the facts have to say? Those dirty skeptics... lets make up a mean sounding name for them! haha

[Guest River]

snip

/snip

Your argument is extremely weak. You keep trying to point a finger at skeptics for what they choose to believe based on the facts. You seem to be speaking about taking a skeptical look at this phenomenon is an injustice to it. Well... take a look at the reality of this.

Fact, any skeptic can legitimately call "bigfoot" evidence bologny because it is. There is no proof that any sasquatch anywhere made any print. Thats a lot of anys! We can also say.... legitimately... its been proven that man hoaxes "bigfoot evidence". (as well as misidentifications/fabrications)

So lets take a look at the FACTS.

Can prove men hoax this "evidence"

Can prove people fabricate stories, or mentally ill individuals sometimes "see things"

Can prove misidentifications.

So we can state with clarity, these things occur. We can be certain of this.

Cant prove one sasquatch print came from one bigfoot. Cant prove any "bigfoot evidence" is such.

So you tell me whos statements and stance is based on grudgery, or pseudoscience, or whatever dirty label you want to throw on things. Looks to me like its based firmly in fact..... not speculation... and assumptions....

Pseudoskeptic? lmao.....Look at the facts.

[Huntster]

You keep trying to point a finger at skeptics for what they choose to believe based on the facts.

Actually, "facts" have little to do with the issue. It's the acceptance, doubt, or denial of evidence that is the issue here.

Fact, any skeptic can legitimately call "bigfoot" evidence bologny because it is.

Thank you for a perfect example of exactly what I'm saying. You are quite incorrect. To be accurate, any skeptic can legitimately call some "bigfoot" evidence doubtful, because it might be, and all denialists will label "bigfoot" evidence bologny (sic) because they deny the very existence of the creatures, past and present, as a matter of ideological course.

There is no proof that any sasquatch anywhere made any print.

Correct. However, there is plenty of evidence (some of it very strong) that a bipedal ape has left footprints.

We can also say.... legitimately... its been proven that man hoaxes "bigfoot evidence".

It is also proven that people have ideological agendas.

[Incorrigible1]

Your argument is extremely weak. You keep trying to point a finger at skeptics for what they choose to believe based on the facts. You seem to be speaking about taking a skeptical look at this phenomenon is an injustice to it. Well... take a look at the reality of this.

Fact, any skeptic can legitimately call "bigfoot" evidence bologny because it is. There is no proof that any sasquatch anywhere made any print. Thats a lot of anys! We can also say.... legitimately... its been proven that man hoaxes "bigfoot evidence". (as well as misidentifications/fabrications)

So lets take a look at the FACTS.

Can prove men hoax this "evidence"

Can prove people fabricate stories, or mentally ill individuals sometimes "see things"

Can prove misidentifications.

So we can state with clarity, these things occur. We can be certain of this.

Cant prove one sasquatch print came from one bigfoot. Cant prove any "bigfoot evidence" is such.

So you tell me whos statements and stance is based on grudgery, or pseudoscience, or whatever dirty label you want to throw on things. Looks to me like its based firmly in fact..... not speculation... and assumptions....

Pseudoskeptic? lmao.....Look at the facts.

Skeptics are indeed welcome on BFF. Their input provides valuable insight into the subject of bigfoot.

What is it that brings you here, River? Is it to save me from my incorrect beliefs, to evangelize? I mean, it's obvious you simply cannot accept the possible existence of the creature to which this forum is devoted. You take every opportunity to turn threads into a black/white "the creature does not exist" statement. Why do you seek to stifle conversation between interested parties?

It's a given conclusive evidence for the creature does not exist. I get that. I accept that. I cannot provide the linchpin that would prove that. OK? Is it beyond you to accept that and allow the free exchange of ideas between those that are still interested in the possibility the creature exists? Just curious.

[indiefoot]

All this "pseudoskeptic" stuff cracks me up. Is this what you present when you dont like what the facts have to say? Those dirty skeptics... lets make up a mean sounding name for them! haha

Actually, the term pseudoskeptic was coined by Prof. Marcello Truzzi, founding co-chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). He was one of the founders of the modern skeptical movement in America.

The term pseudoskepticism was popularized and characterized by Marcello Truzzi in response to skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.wiki

[Huntster]

^That is just beautiful.^

[Guest River]

Actually, "facts" have little to do with the issue. It's the acceptance, doubt, or denial of evidence that is the issue here.

Thank you for a perfect example of exactly what I'm saying. You are quite incorrect. To be accurate, any skeptic can legitimately call some "bigfoot" evidence doubtful, because it might be, and all denialists will label "bigfoot" evidence bologny (sic) because they deny the very existence of the creatures, past and present, as a matter of ideological course.

Correct. However, there is plenty of evidence (some of it very strong) that a bipedal ape has left footprints.

It is also proven that people have ideological agendas.

Who is denying what exactly? I can deal with what is real and documented. I'm not afraid to accept some legitimate evidence. I just havent seen it. I dont get why proponents have a problem with people who wont "believe" based on the current body of evidence. Its definitely not enough to make the case for science. Its defintiely not enough to classify such an animal existing, yet when people point this out it seems to be like some kind of burn or insult? Why is that? Why cant we argue what is real, and true?

Just because some refuse to accept speculation and assumptions as fact doesnt mean that we are "denying" anything. Show me the proof, I'll be happy to change my position.

[Guest River]

Skeptics are indeed welcome on BFF. Their input provides valuable insight into the subject of bigfoot.

What is it that brings you here, River? Is it to save me from my incorrect beliefs, to evangelize? I mean, it's obvious you simply cannot accept the possible existence of the creature to which this forum is devoted. You take every opportunity to turn threads into a black/white "the creature does not exist" statement. Why do you seek to stifle conversation between interested parties?

It's a given conclusive evidence for the creature does not exist. I get that. I accept that. I cannot provide the linchpin that would prove that. OK? Is it beyond you to accept that and allow the free exchange of ideas between those that are still interested in the possibility the creature exists? Just curious.

I'm no evangelist. I'm also not in agreement with your statement above. (my bolding) Just because I draw a hard line on the evidence does not mean I discount the possibility. I come from the school of show me the beef. You cant? then fine, we will move on until you can. Mean time, quit tellin me you got the beef behind your back but you cant show it to me... (/sarcasm)

[Guest River]

Actually, the term pseudoskeptic was coined by Prof. Marcello Truzzi, founding co-chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). He was one of the founders of the modern skeptical movement in America.

Note the definition of that term.

skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims

I've "beared" the burden of proof with my claims. You have not.... So who in reality is being pseudo anything?

[Incorrigible1]

I'm no evangelist. I'm also not in agreement with your statement above. (my bolding) Just because I draw a hard line on the evidence does not mean I discount the possibility. I come from the school of show me the beef. You cant? then fine, we will move on until you can. Mean time, quit tellin me you got the beef behind your back but you cant show it to me... (/sarcasm)

Interesting you chose not to respond to my comment and question....

"You take every opportunity to turn threads into a black/white "the creature does not exist" statement. Why do you seek to stifle conversation between interested parties?"

Your sarcasm is directed toward one that's never claimed to have "the beef."

Edited October 5, 2010 by Incorrigible1