So Why Are The Skeptics Obsessed With Bf?

[xspider1]

Saskeptic -

Over and over again, 'Science' makes definitive statements like that and those statements are later proven to be wrong. To me, it would make more sense for a skeptic to say something like: I don't think that Bigfoot (or, alien space-craft, ghosts, etc. etc.) exist. You are, of course, entitled to express your opinion anyway you choose. 8 )

[Guest]

Scientists have determined that the earth orbits the sun. If some new evidence was produced that was of sufficient quality to revisit that conclusion, they would.

My point? There is nothing in the bigfoot phenomenon that warrants a greater degree of fence-sitting than any other phenomenon that we think we understand.

[Guest]

Saskeptic,

How to you feel about interesting or "unknown" audio recordings as a biologist yourself? Spectral analysis and comparision with known animal recordings ? Do you find it par with other anecdotal (sic) evidence like BF castings/tracks or better ?

Thanks

[Guest]

How to you feel about interesting or "unknown" audio recordings as a biologist yourself?

Like all bigfoot evidence, there are three main categories for audio recordings:

1) misidentified known animals (canids, cattle, owls, etc.)

2) human generated sounds (whether hoaxes or innocent misinterpretation)

3) unknown source (may include real bigfoots, either explanation 1 or 2, or some other source)

[Guest]

Thanks man, thats the most logical answer and I couldn't agree more.

[Guest]

Scientists have determined that the earth orbits the sun. If some new evidence was produced that was of sufficient quality to revisit that conclusion, they would.

My point? There is nothing in the bigfoot phenomenon that warrants a greater degree of fence-sitting than any other phenomenon that we think we understand.

That's not very scientific. We have proof that the earth orbits the sun and it won't be revisited. You also need proof to claim that bigfoot does not exist. Especially when there is circumstantial evidence suggesting otherwise. The weakness if this evidence can never prove bigfoot doesn't exist. There is no null hypothesis you can devise that could disprove bigfoot. That's the genius behind the concept. And that's why it's only your personal opinion and not the default position of science re bigfoot. You need proof to speak in such absolute terms, even for bigfoot.

[Guest]

You also need proof to claim that bigfoot does not exist.

My proof is that there is no bigfoot on a slab in the year 2011. If you'd like a better analogy re: "can't prove a negative" then I'm happy to switch to: "The Steller's sea cow is extinct. If one turns up tomorrow I will revisit that conclusion."

[southernyahoo]

You've simply not seen evidence that proves it exists to you Saskeptic, which might say as much about your ability to examine or interpret the evidence, as it does about the evidence itself.

If you're an absolutist then the evidence is not the issue.

[slabdog]

^^^^^

According to Art1972's earlier mentioned BF personality profiles, I consider myself #3) "The skeptical proponent"

With that in mind....southeryahoo, I would ask that you consider pulling together your best stuff and present it to Sas for a review.

Chances are he'll probably still maintain his position, but ya never know.

Maybe seeing your best stuff all in one "box" as opposed to spread throughout, and intertwined within, the BFF might give him a different perspective.

probably not...but what the heck can it hurt?

Edited September 26, 2011 by slabdog

[Guest]

My proof is that there is no bigfoot on a slab in the year 2011. If you'd like a better analogy re: "can't prove a negative" then I'm happy to switch to: "The Steller's sea cow is extinct. If one turns up tomorrow I will revisit that conclusion."

So an animal is extinct or does not exist until someone proves otherwise? The gorilla began its existence in 1902 then. And not having discovered it before then was proof it didn't exist..at the time.

[slabdog]

^^^

Giganto:

All that Sas is saying is that he would need hard evidence to prove somethings existence to science. Not to a witness or a believer. To SCIENCE.

[Guest]

If you're an absolutist then the evidence is not the issue.

Sure it is. What you might interpret as bigfoot evidence, I interpret as human brain evidence. There is not a single scrap of evidence that we can confirm came from such a thing as a bigfoot - and that's from anywhere in the world despite the near global distribution reported for such creatures. The evidence very much is the issue because I'm not convinced there is any. If that makes me absolutist, then it puts me in the good company of every single biologist who's published the description of a new species.

[slabdog]

Skeptics and science get beat on pretty good here from time to time.

But without 'em we'd probably still be going to the barber for a blood letting or leach therapy when we fell ill.

Just provide them with some hard conclusive evidence and we can all move on.

[Guest]

So an animal is extinct or does not exist until someone proves otherwise? The gorilla began its existence in 1902 then. And not having discovered it before then was proof it didn't exist..at the time.

The discovery of the mountain gorilla could potentially be relevant if no white man had ever explored a region in which bigfoots were reported to live. Captain von Beringe bagged one on what was probably the first trek by a European through the Virungas. He wasn't even on a collecting trip. In contrast, Matt Moneymaker seems to be on the trail of bigfoot monthly, and has yet to score even a decent photograph.

As for an extinct animal such as the Steller's sea cow, yes. We confirm extinction by looking for the organism and failing to find it. If you have a better plan for how to go about that task, then I'll happily refer you to some friends of mine in the USFWS. Obviously, this is an open-ended endeavor, and there are numerous examples of species being rediscovered after being declared extinct.

[Guest]

^^^

Giganto:

All that Sas is saying is that he would need hard evidence to prove somethings existence to science. Not to a witness or a believer. To SCIENCE.

No Slab, that's not what Sas is saying. Of course science needs hard evidence to prove something exists. So do I. But a lack of hard evidence does not prove something doesn't exist. Placing an "extinct" status on a species doesn't prove it is. Especially, with the proviso from the biologists that they will revise their status if one turns up. So how does a lack of good bigfoot evidence prove bigfoot doesn't exist? It doesn't.