Story Of Bf And A Hermit College Professor

[Branco]

A good scientist is a skeptic and carefully looks over evidence. We have denialist on the forum and they are the extreme skeptics. If they don't believe witness accounts then so what. Just ignore their comments. The ones who use ridicule and scarcasm needs to be booted off the forum since they add nothing but are detractors.

I guess you are right, but there is no "evidence" on this forums to "be looked over". For that reason, the "good scientist" are not pursuing science, but expressing their own personal opinions which carry no more weight or validity than that of person they are addressing. But, I know that many folks that read the posts here and want to learn a little more, are intimidated by some of the "seasoned" veterans. That stifles open discussion. I hate to see that. Nothing good about that.

There is no question but what some reports discussed here are BS, and they can be identified quickly. But many observations and reports are valid, but have been hammered simply because some of the respondends - who do not have even a basic knowledge of the creatures - have some preconceived notion that the creatures are either a myth or as dumb as dirt. Time will soon clear up those misconceptions. Just hope I'm around to see the headlines.

But, thanks for the comments.

[Guest parnassus]

Of course not. That's why we have skeptics and denialists. They always have the lack of proof to rest their superiority upon.

What more consistency is necessary for the skeptic or denialist? We even have controversy over well documented debate during the formation of the United States, with thousands of letters, manuscripts, minutes, etc to refer to. How can any consistency be "proven" regarding an obviously rare creature during the obscure arrival of Europeans with so little surviving documentation to refer to? We can't even find Roanoke, for Pete's sake.

Then why can't we believe it just exists without opposition?

Huntster, I note your effort to totally derail the issue of consistency of accounts into all these ad hominem issues.

Edited October 16, 2010 by parnassus

[Guest rockinkt]

<snip>

There is no question but what some reports discussed here are BS, and they can be identified quickly. But many observations and reports are valid, but have been hammered simply because some of the respondends - who do not have even a basic knowledge of the creatures - have some preconceived notion that the creatures are either a myth or as dumb as dirt. Time will soon clear up those misconceptions. Just hope I'm around to see the headlines.

<snip>

Please explain how you can come to the conclusion that certain reports are "valid" by just reading or hearing them.

Please point out what "basic knowledge of the creatures" you have and how you were able to come to those conclusions.

Thank you.

[Huntster]

Huntster: Hang it there, "The Rest Of the Story" is being written. Wait fot it.

Thanks for the encouragement, Branco. My dream is to actually see such a creature in the wild. I believe it would be absolutely magnificent, and I will attempt to do so in the foreseeable future. Having gone back and forth on the question, I am now of the mind never to shoot such a creature "for science". Frankly, I think that "science" needs to remain in the darkness it has chosen to dwell in and appears to demand to remain in.

[Huntster]

]There may not be a creed, but there certainly are principles or doctrines that one must adhere to in order to be a skeptic:

Must adhere to? I doubt it.

Let's review:

a) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object;

( the doctrine that true knowledge or certainty in a particular area is impossible; or

© the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).

So, if you accept something on faith, you can still be a skeptic with regard to that subject? Or mus you adhere to the above principles?

I will question the validity of an unproven claim, but there's no checklist I must go through

I didn't mention a checklist. I specifically wrote "principles" or "doctrines". And as soon as you accept something on faith (IOW, without proof) you are no longer skeptical on that subject.

nor am I chastised by anyone for not doing something a certain way.

Oh, my, yes you most certainly would on the JREF forum.

Like I said, I don't go to weekly meetings

How often do you participate on the JREF forum?

I'm not required to hand over money to anyone, no creed to recite, no book to refer to or tote around, nothing. It's like total intellectual freedom.

What do creeds, money, or books have to do with principles or doctrines?

I believe. Faith is much more powerful than hope.

I'm skeptical of your claim.

A review of the terms "faith" and "hope" in an English dictionary might help resolve your skepticism, but considering the fact that the English language is not likely to overcome your ideology, I rather doubt it.

Call me a skeptic, too......

Boy, it's a good thing we get along with each other.

Yes, it is. I likes ya'.

[Huntster]

What more consistency is necessary for the skeptic or denialist? We even have controversy over well documented debate during the formation of the United States, with thousands of letters, manuscripts, minutes, etc to refer to. How can any consistency be "proven" regarding an obviously rare creature during the obscure arrival of Europeans with so little surviving documentation to refer to? We can't even find Roanoke, for Pete's sake.

Huntster, I note your effort to totally derail the issue of consistency of accounts into all these ad hominem issues.

And I note your attempted use of "ad hominem" foolishness with your desire to degrade the obvious: there can be no "consistency" of reports from 300 to 400 years ago when their documentation is eliminated or diluted by the absence of the original reports, and my reference to our nation's founding documents (the originals of which still exist) as well as all the letters, meeting minutes, journals, and other supporting documents are still hotly debated today with regard to what was meant.

Didn't you claim to be some kind of scientist, or otherwise a "smart" kinda' guy? Can't you do better than that with a backwoods redneck like me?

[Branco]

Please explain how you can come to the conclusion that certain reports are "valid" by just reading or hearing them.

Please point out what "basic knowledge of the creatures" you have and how you were able to come to those conclusions.

Thank you.

Would'nt want to tell you anything that might help you get that permit. Sorry.