Skepticism and why it's needed.....

In the history of mankind's existence on this little blue ball of ours, there are various points in which we have been faced with unknowns (and this happened often) in the olden days, we made up myths to explain some of these things w didn't understand (Lightning was Zeus' vengeance, manatees were mermaids, discovered fossils were evidence of giants, Bigfoot...etc) it's the skeptics of the world who keep the line of thought on the straight and narrow.

We look at the presented "evidence" and scrutinize it trying to find the flaws. Good evidence stands on it's own and if it can be cracked or broken it IS WORTHLESS!!! When a scientist publishes a peer reviewed paper. He hasn't proven anything, not yet. The community of scientists in his particular field, attempt to prove it wrong. They try to "break it". only after the community at large is unable to break his findings, or prove them wrong are they accepted and then cited by others in future studies of their own. That's really all a skeptic is. a Bullcrap buster.

No emotional connection to the data, no hopefulness, no preconceived notions. You look at something and try and prove it's a fake. Or how it could have possibly been faked. It helps keep an even keel on the progress of study. (cuz if everybody just believes everything, eventually you waste years and years looking for the wrong thing, or following the wrong path of study. That's stupid and wasteful)


Bigfoot believers NEED us. Too many people either let themselves get carried away or have too much of an emotional connection to Bigfoot as to be useless in determining the value of any possible evidence. if everything is Bigfoot, how can you really separate the wheat from the chaff? The answer is, you can't.

I think more people should look at everything in life with a critical eye. it may make you a bit of a grumpy old crankapotamus, but you won't find yourself getting boodoggled, that's for damn sure!

I don't consider you an actual Skeptic Stank.
1.) Instead of presenting your Skeptism constuctively you Jump in a lot and just say it doesn't exsist.
2.) You aren't always using logic either. You are emotional Skeptic like people are Emotional BF believers
3.) You are relegious about your skeptism
4.) When some one questions you about what you say with proof you Place them on Ignore are refuse to answer.
5.) you would rather have the information hanned to you instead of doing the work your self (example DPinkerton, put together the number of sightings by doing simple math, yet you rather have it spoon feed it to you)
6.) You would rather bring up the outrageous claims of other BFers than talking about it with the new group.
7.) you claim you have the same arguments over and over....well then maybe you should stop having them.

I have read so much about science being the end all to any discussions pertaining to pretty much everything. Science does not accept the idea of Bigfoot because the scientists feel that evidence is lacking, or is not strong enough. Science is quite often wrong, and on many levels, yet we accept so many things from science as facts.

Neanderthal breeding idea doubted

I agree that skepticism is needed, otherwise we have one sided discussions. If skeptics have something to say, then those skeptics need to show something that backs up their point of view.
When a skeptic says 'Bigfoot does not exist", then the onus is on the skeptic to show proof of that statement. If a skeptic says "I don't think Bigfoot exists", then it is an opinion and there really is no onus, but examples to back up opinions are nice.
The same goes for proponents, or "believers" of Bigfoot. If a person says "Bigfoot is real", then show the proof. Evidence is NOT proof. Stating an opinion for the existence of Bigfoot doesn't put the onus on the holder of the opinion.
Hopefully everyone understands my point, sometimes I'm long winded when I shouldn't be.

can't prove a negative...... The onus is on those who support an incredible claim to pony up the proof or admit that they are merely "believing" it to be real.

I don't really know if it's real or not. My gut tells me we would have a body hit by a car, or killed by a hunter and hauled in on the hood of his truck by now if it was. But since the possibility exists that it could be real.(and since you can't prove a negative) I will sit by and wait to see what gets discovered, if anything.

Stank
But see you claim it can't be real because of this or that. You don't follow it up with facts.
When you do follow it up with facts, we can show you where Nature and Science have messed up in the past about things.
And you go well thats them this is bigfoot.

And yes the big cop out is you can't prove a negative. Then if you honestly believe it is a negative why are you even in these forums. you say you are a Skeptic but you just said you can't prove a Negative so this proves that you are not a true skeptic.

I don't really know if it's real or not. My gut tells me we would have a body hit by a car, or killed by a hunter and hauled in on the hood of his truck by now if it was. But since the possibility exists that it could be real.(and since you can't prove a negative) I will sit by and wait to see what gets discovered, if anything.[/quote]

I do think that Bigfoot exists, but that is my opinion. I base my opinion on fresh water supplies, ample game and edible plants, seclusion, and shelter. I also look at eye witness reports and pieces of evidence such as foot prints.
Canada has 1.4 billion acres of forest and many of those acres are unexplored, let alone explored for Bigfoot.

While I haven't given you proof of anything, I have at least explained why I think Bigfoot exists.

can't prove a negative...... The onus is on those who support an incredible claim to pony up the proof or admit that they are merely "believing" it to be real.

That old stand by is old and tired.

But it's true!!! I don't care how old and tired you think it is.


The entire world would love to hear how you can prove a negative.

I say there is life on Mars, you say there isn't. How can you prove there isn't? I can counter every statement you make with "have you checked every single micron of every particle of sand on he planet ? There is a possibility there is life there!!!

See what I mean? Yet these are the types of answers "some " people give in regards to bigfoot.

My opinion is that i think it is possible, though unlikely there is a Bigfoot . I would really love to be wrong. Cuz a Bigfoot bein real would be cool. But I'm not going to give the pursuit of Bigfoot any less of a fine toothed comb than I would any other creature claimed to be a "new species". Why should Bigfoot be different? In fact, judging by the characters involved in footery, I think we need to be extra vigilant. Nobody hoaxes a new type of tree frog..........

I get your point Stank, and I understand it.
I can only speak for myself though. I always say I think Bigfoot exists, and that is my opinion. I don't need to prove my opinion and I'm sure you can agree on that.
If the day comes when I say "Bigfoot is real", you can bet your last dollar that I will have something to back up such a bold statement.
I am so sick of hoaxes that it even isn't funny.
I guess my point is that people need to be careful how they say something. "Proof" is a huge peeve of mine. "Evidence" is fine, but many people confuse the two words.

I get when people get excited and perhaps make an exaggerated claim before they really analyze, say a new video. What bugs me is when people counter a a skeptic who is pointing out a problem with something with "well it's possible and you can't prove it isn't" and they say it in a smug snippy manner and there really is no way to debate that.

You say you have a puppy, I look at it and discover that unless you have an as yet unknown puppy that looks exactly like, you are holding a kitten. and they say " but you can't prove it isn't a puppy, so it's a puppy!"

That crap drives me crazy. (that along with trying to say because A=B therefore C=D, when the two equations have nothing to do with each other)

There is no problem what ever with skepticism. The problem is in the way that skepticism is portrayed. If the skeptic comes in and says
I dont believe this BECAUSE.... then its just part of the debate. But if the skeptic (or believer) comes in and says you guys are a crock.
That point is from a hack. Youre an idiot, or how could anybody believe such a hoax?! Then that is letting emotion take over the argument
and its on longer a debate. It devolves into namecalling etc etc. In that vain skepticism is not healthy (or believing) for the debate.

I must admit that sometimes i am befuddled by the stuff people can believe. and amused by how gullible they can be.
But I have posted a couple of times after going out drankin and that was a mistake too........

Hi.

I am not posting on the main BF Evidence site anymore because I think it is overpopulated by cranks and trolls on all sides of the debate. But having read the above I feel drawn back to this forum at least. Everyone made good points and no one got flamed or emotional.

I am leaning heavily towards Stank's position and I think he did a pretty good job of explaining scepticism, but sceptics shouldn't be trying to prove things are a crock of poop they should just question evidence and look for alternative explanations. Trying to prove things are a pile of poopoo is a bit more like debunking, which can get just as emotional as unfounded belief, IMHO.

But the basic premise in the OP is right. Imagine if you were organising the BF research field trip to end all field trips, the biggest, baddest most all encompassing one yet. WOuld you pick just beleivers or just sceptics? If it was up to me I would not pick anyone from the two extremes but I would pick those who had invested beleif in BF and those who were sceptical.

Anyway, just wanted to say I was happy to read a productive debate. Oh yeah...the most powerful thing to take from this is the point made about not being able to prove a negative. You just can't do it and the burden of proof lies with the person who is trying to move the boundaries of understanding i.e. the one reporting the new or unproven phenomena.

Vigil,

Would you agree that if a Skeptic says that it can not be real because of point A. And the other person says well Point A happens in Nature this way. That it is then Possible and can be logical that Point A can be in Bigfoot.
It is why I pointed to the Cave SPider they found. It had things that other arcanids didn't have and felt shouldn't have.
Yes it can be Unlikely but it is possible and this does not make one gullible as Stank Believes.

He seems to lump all bigfooters into believing every piece of film or evidence. I don't think every bigfooter jumps on evidence and goes its Bigfoot.

I am not sure I have a good enough understanding of all this to be that useful. But if your point is that the boundaries of what we know, new species emerge all the time and what we think is possible shifts all the time then, hey I am with you. But the spider thing is difficult to apply to large primates in a specific way. I think what you are doing there is taking a general logical truth and trying to make it a specific logical truth.

the thing about proving a negative is undisputable though. You can't really do it. By 'a negative' we don't mean that something is bad in that way negative, we mean that you can't prove that something doesn't exist. Imagine someone said they beleived in purple and oragne elephants and then said - well ok prove they don't exist, to someone who didn't beleive them. That person could not prove they dont exist, but this wouldn't mean thay do exist. oh..I sorta lost my thread there.

Basically if you don't care what other people believe then you can beleive what you want, but that way lies madness and brightly coloured pills. If you want other people to beleive you, you will run into all sorts of rules about reality and how we work out what is real i.e. science.

I don't think for one minute any of what I said is very helpful.

Virgil_Caine wrote:I don't think for one minute any of what I said is very helpful.

Makes perfect sense to me - or at least I know what you are getting at and think you hit the nail on the head .

Virgil_Caine wrote:I am not sure I have a good enough understanding of all this to be that useful. But if your point is that the boundaries of what we know, new species emerge all the time and what we think is possible shifts all the time then, hey I am with you. But the spider thing is difficult to apply to large primates in a specific way. I think what you are doing there is taking a general logical truth and trying to make it a specific logical truth.

the thing about proving a negative is undisputable though. You can't really do it. By 'a negative' we don't mean that something is bad in that way negative, we mean that you can't prove that something doesn't exist. Imagine someone said they beleived in purple and oragne elephants and then said - well ok prove they don't exist, to someone who didn't beleive them. That person could not prove they dont exist, but this wouldn't mean thay do exist. oh..I sorta lost my thread there.

Basically if you don't care what other people believe then you can beleive what you want, but that way lies madness and brightly coloured pills. If you want other people to beleive you, you will run into all sorts of rules about reality and how we work out what is real i.e. science.

I don't think for one minute any of what I said is very helpful.

Ok Virgil, "REAL SCIENCE"
At present REAL science as you say has 3 Theories of Quantum Gravity Which Theory is the correct one?
I am not bashing science but when people say REAL SCIENCE or REAL Research yet we have 3 Theories that are about the SAME thing. Which is correct?
See so even in REAL science as you and Stank discuss their is A BELIEF system in place you have SOME people believing the String Theory of Quantum gravity while you have others believing the other 2.
So to apply what you call real science is not accurat.
Stank has still yet to tell me which Theory of Quantum Gravity is the real Undisputed fact of Gravity He has said he knows all about Physics.

None of that helps your argument of a 10 magical forest monkey in north america

I know Bigfoot exists but I think to a degree, skepticism is needed. IE every bump in night is not a "squatch", every blob-squatch is not the real deal. However, on pretty much every forum I have ever visited, what is passed off as skepticism is really just rude, arrogant behavior.

Personally I am more likely to believe a first hand experience on a forum rather than a you tube type video. I think "What is the benefit"? for any post I view. Most people, especially with older sightings, are just trying to share an experience that has bothered them for years. For most, any "glory" that some feel is attached to telling someone you saw a BF just isn't there. Instead you meet ridicule. Personally I don't really care about that, I have told my experience to a select few, my family knows me and knows I don't lie, period. I don't really care what anyone else thinks lol. I have put it on a few forums because I think the information is important to corroborate other sightings and sometimes it really bothers me and I feel a need to talk about it. As far as writing off the sightings as mis-identification, ok maybe if it's a glimpse from far off thru some trees, you could think it's something it isn't but it simply doesn't look like a bear, a wolf, a coyote, a deer so that can not account for many sightings of the more up close and personal nature.. Size normally rules out a person dressed up, as does the location. Again what is the benefit of someone tramping around in an out of the way location in a suit to "fool" someone? Why? If someone is going to do that they would pick someplace where they would be seen or plaster it up on you tube (That is why I view those videos about 6 times and usually dismiss them, occasionally I think they are really something legit but it is the wrong place to post it.).

The scientific process is not all it's cracked up to be. If you don't think politics is involved in what gets published and what doesn't, you simply are not being realistic. That doesn't just pertain to Bigfoot, it's throughout the scientific community, so much so you can't believe everything/anything "science " says.

CMac -

those things you mention are theories and unless I misunderstood you, you think bigfoot exists, so you don't think of bigfoot in a thoretical way. I didn't say 'real science' either, I said science helps us understand what is real.

There are always different theories until there is evidenced, reviewed, replicable experimental certainty that sometimes stops the theoretical arguements. I am not going to try and convince you that everyone in science agrees on everything, especially in the realm of theoretical, subatomic physics.

Of course science could be described as a belief system. But one built on internal and external validity and not on faith in unprovable propositions.

jan1033 wrote:

The scientific process is not all it's cracked up to be. If you don't think politics is involved in what gets published and what doesn't, you simply are not being realistic. That doesn't just pertain to Bigfoot, it's throughout the scientific community, so much so you can't believe everything/anything "science " says.

hang on 'everything/anything' ??? I would go with 'everything'. I know very well about the politicisation of science and I agree it is very real. It's still better than unevidenced faith in my opinion and it is up to individuals to syphon out political interference. Also, you will always be able to find 'scientists' who disagree even over things that have been 'proven' experiementally. That's just human nature and its a good thing as sometimes the heretics are eventually PROVEN right (by using better science).

So Virgil then Science needs to disprove that Big Foot is Real.

um that would be proving a negative........... which is impossible (as stated above)



science takes EVIDENCE and DATA and attempts to break it, if it doesn't break then it's eventually accepted. claims don't follow this sort of thing. scientists don't have the time to try and prove claims wrong. they have more important stuff to do.



example: if Ketchum's alleged paper is ever published, other scientists will be attempting to replicate her results, if they can't, her paper will have been debunked. If they can, then her results will be confirmed.

What you are asserting is "i say Bigfoot is real, prove me wrong" that's not how it works. If i say I can spin my head 360 degrees without injury. You would say "show me". That's asking for confirmation of my claim. I wouldn't be able to say "nope, you have to prove I can't"............see?

I have dont stuff as a scientist to prove stuff wrong and I will give you the example. Once GPS was accepted Congress wrote an edict that all future weapons
MUST have GPS. I knew that GPS could easily be jammed so I wrote a white paper did several tests to show that GPS should not be used alone without inertial guidance
systems or it can be fooled and disastrous results could happen.
The result of that was a whole new section of GPS study started in Anti Jam. Just an example of scientists doing things to prove something doesn't work.
One of the tests I did quickly to prove we knew what we were doing is I went to Radio Shack bought all the parts I needed INCLUDING the circuit board etching
and built a 1Watt jammer. The only thing that didnt come out of Radio Shack was the Tuna can I used to house the parts. There was a joke in that and I cant remember
what it was?(the Tuna can) After that we built a really sophisticated Jammer that is on display here at the Naval Air Warfare Center.

that's proving something wouldn't work. That' exactly what I'm talking about. You had an idea, showed that there would be problems and presented your findings. That's science.

That isn't proving a negative. That's proving something won't work. Proving a negative would be like my above head turning example or trying to prove Bigfoot doesn't exist.... it's impossible.

StankApe wrote:
um that would be proving a negative........... which is impossible (as stated above)



science takes EVIDENCE and DATA and attempts to break it, if it doesn't break then it's eventually accepted. claims don't follow this sort of thing. scientists don't have the time to try and prove claims wrong. they have more important stuff to do.



example: if Ketchum's alleged paper is ever published, other scientists will be attempting to replicate her results, if they can't, her paper will have been debunked. If they can, then her results will be confirmed.

What you are asserting is "i say Bigfoot is real, prove me wrong" that's not how it works. If i say I can spin my head 360 degrees without injury. You would say "show me". That's asking for confirmation of my claim. I wouldn't be able to say "nope, you have to prove I can't"............see?

No Stank the paper in order to be PUBLISHED scientifically means it is in PEER REVIEW this means that her PEERS will already be reviewing it to make sure the Science that she has done is accurat.
In order to be published in a scientific journal it is most likely already been reviewed by others.

Now you obviously don't get it. Science doesn't GO out to Disprove or break things. Science goes out to Prove their Hypothesis that they come up with.
I love how supposed science nuts bounce back and forth on what scientists do.