Bigfoot Makes House Calls?

[Guest gershake]

I doubt that because many of the skeptics here don't think bigfoot exists in the first place. I'm sure all of us would be grateful for anyone to have good evidence at all! And if such evidence did surface I'm sure no one would attack it just because.

[indiefoot]

Same question back though, why wouldn't they be objective? What motivation could someone have to attack anything that looks remotely like evidence? Just because?

Because they have an investment in the position they have taken. Some posters are more interested in winning points that finding the truth.

[indiefoot]

I doubt that because many of the skeptics here don't think bigfoot exists in the first place. I'm sure all of us would be grateful for anyone to have good evidence at all! And if such evidence did surface I'm sure no one would attack it just because.

Really.... we'll see if that is true after Dr. Ketchum releases her paper. The efforts to poison the well have already begun.

[Guest]

Because they have an investment in the position they have taken. Some posters are more interested in winning points that finding the truth.

And some posters think they already know the truth even though they have no proof.

[Guest gershake]

Because they have an investment in the position they have taken.

Please bear with me, but: namely?

[indiefoot]

Sure, if I have seen a Sasquatch and have seen their tracks and been convinced that what I had experienced was in fact real, I can be of the opinion that I know they are real and yet lack enough evidence to convince you. Individuals can be convinced by their experiences and by anecdotal evidence.

[Guest gershake]

Well, those persons have their reasons to think they have seen one. Skeptics have their reasons to think that maybe there are no bigfeet. But why wouldn't good evidence (if bigfeet exist and good evidence does surface at some point) make them reconsider?

[indiefoot]

Please bear with me, but: namely?

Many of the pseudoskeptics that post on this forum have taken a position that Bigfoot is a fantasy. There are a few skeptics that are less entrenched and less dogmatic about every piece of possible evidence that comes forth.

If you are asking me to name names, no thanks.

[Guest]

Well, those persons have their reasons to think they have seen one. Skeptics have their reasons to think that maybe there are no bigfeet. But why wouldn't good evidence (if bigfeet exist and good evidence does surface at some point) make them reconsider?

IF good evidence was provided, you'd be surprised how many would reconsider

[Guest gershake]

 That's exactly what I think. (Especially because various skeptics on this board said they would!)

Edited November 11, 2010 by gershake

[Sasfooty]

That's exactly what I think. (Especially because various skeptics on this board said they would!)

So we are all supposed to believe "various skeptics", but they feel free to doubt everything we say?

[Guest]

Many of the pseudoskeptics that post on this forum have taken a position that Bigfoot is a fantasy. There are a few skeptics that are less entrenched and less dogmatic about every piece of possible evidence that comes forth.

If you are asking me to name names, no thanks.

I think bigfoot is mythological, and nothing more. I've seen no evidence sufficient to convince me otherwise. I would, however, be absolutely thrilled to be wrong about this, and so would just about every other biologist with whom I've ever discussed the topic (which is most of them I know well). "Science" is not entrenched in an anti-bigfoot bias and engaged in some massive cover-up to save face or something. Science is made up of scientists who are unconvinced by the data offered to-date for bigfoot. Because the so-called evidence has been so scanty and so poor, scientists are rightfully highly skeptical of any new claims and would be reluctant to accept them without very careful scrutiny. But if some new evidence stood up to that scrutiny and established that we indeed do have bigfoots in our midst, then who cares about having been wrong to be skeptical? Not me. I'll take "bigfoot + a big pile of crow on plate" over "no bigfoot and no crow on my plate" hands down.

[Guest]

I think bigfoot is mythological, and nothing more. I've seen no evidence sufficient to convince me otherwise. I would, however, be absolutely thrilled to be wrong about this, and so would just about every other biologist with whom I've ever discussed the topic (which is most of them I know well). "Science" is not entrenched in an anti-bigfoot bias and engaged in some massive cover-up to save face or something. Science is made up of scientists who are unconvinced by the data offered to-date for bigfoot. Because the so-called evidence has been so scanty and so poor, scientists are rightfully highly skeptical of any new claims and would be reluctant to accept them without very careful scrutiny. But if some new evidence stood up to that scrutiny and established that we indeed do have bigfoots in our midst, then who cares about having been wrong to be skeptical? Not me. I'll take "bigfoot + a big pile of crow on plate" over "no bigfoot and no crow on my plate" hands down.

YEP

[Guest gershake]

So we are all supposed to believe "various skeptics", but they feel free to doubt everything we say?

See Saskeptic's post. Or does any part of it sound illogical to you?

[Guest River]

I completely agree with what saskeptic said in that post.

I said just about the same thing in this post. It's not about the "us vs them" argument. It's about the lack of valid evidence. I don't expect believers, romantics, or any other label tossed on folks to make something out of nothing. Good evidence will speak for itself. It will stand up to any level of scrutiny regardless of your opinion about the existence. This is what I've said all along. It's not a matter of belief or not believing. It's a matter of substantial and validated evidence presented to date.