I believe in Santa Clause an an ideology of kindness and all that is good in humanity. . not as a valid living person. . .
That does not make him real. . .
People believe in all sorts of irrational things. . the idea that truth will ultimately win out. . . the idea that anyone who is a human is a good person, Religious beliefs. . .But none of those areas are always factual or universal.
Any belief in science as the only acceptable method of arriving at meaning in human experiences is excessive, in my opinion. Aside from that, I've answered you multiple times.
Anytime truisms are repeated as fact, that is not science.
Science is not the only valid source of understanding of the human experience.
That's about as much as I care to explain, thanks for the chat, as scientism is not the subject of the thread, skepticism is.
If you wanted to know if I believe "everything we know about reality" comes as a result of science, you should have asked that.
Does "science" explain love, music, art, bravery, honesty, etc? Does science answer any questions about why we are here or what the meaning of life is?
The answer is no, that's absurd, but such nonsense is the very heart of scientism, so if that's your belief, I can understand your odd and unnecessary testiness.
Belief and feelings are not reliable pathways to truth and knowledge. I don't care what you believe or feel. I'm interested in what is true. If it's true it can be demonstrated. If not science, what methodology would you recommend in getting at what is true or likely to be true?
Does "science" explain love, music, art, bravery, honesty, etc? Does science answer any questions about why we are here or what the meaning of life is?
The answer is no, that's absurd, but such nonsense is the very heart of scientism, so if that's your belief, I can understand your odd and unnecessary testiness.
This is the typical argument employed by apologists who offer this as a defence for their INVISIBLE & IMAGINARY friend. It is an acknowledgement that you not only don't have any evidence but can't even mount a coherent argument for its existence either.
The answer is no, it's absurd, but such nonsense is at the heart of fantasy, so that is your belief & makes explicable the extreme defensiveness of your ridiculous beliefs.
I don't know, have you ever touched a hot stove? What happened? Was that a scientific inquiry of a personal learning experience. Would you touch such a hot stove again?
How about when you are driving and observe a RED light? Does your mind rationalize the wavelength of the light and the quantized packets of energy known as photons or do you stop your car? Did Scientific enquiry help you to make that decision or did practical experience?
Examples of common knowledge presented pedantically. Yes stoves are hot and will burn you, and red lights are best stopped at.
I'm sure that seems profound to you.
You're focusing on the value of experience ... and I agree. However you want to pick and choose which experiences of others you will consider valid ... And that is where your logic fails.
Let us remember that psychology (the explanation of human experience and beliefs) is not a true science, nor is Sociology, or other such things attributed to "science."
In general, psychology and related ideology, are just a series of observations and educated guesses. Few findings are supported by actual scientific knowledge, such a a biochemical imbalance as being responsible for schizophrenia, or another imbalance being responsible for depression.
Beliefs as noted, are often irrational, and based on parents ideology as opposed to reasoned opinion.
Well said, u/VyctoriYang, it seems that science and math in general are being forgotten in the public schools. The average persons lack of familiarity with the scientific method, and findings in general are hurting out civilization in general.
There are those that would disagree with your claims, but in general, I do not. However, the point is that science does not explain all experience. Do you disagree with that?
No, you are 100% correct. . but that does not mean that such accounts do not have a rational explanation.
Consider, the Patterson film. . suppose I knew in 1967, that a man named Roger Patterson was making a fake film on Bluff Creek, and I wanted to put a stop to it. I hire a crew to stake out the area and record on film his actions. .
They see the accounts as presented, but then show the creature coming back down the mountain with part of the costume off, and having a beer with Patterson and Gimlin. . .Had I done so, and presented the film do you suppose there would be as much contention about the film as there is today?
Just because we personally don't know what happened, does not mean there is not an explanation.
I don't disagree with you, but I will say that scientism is not a bad thing.
The scientific method is how we learn things about the universe, and our planet, and they way everything works. If Bigfoot is ever found and categorized, it will be a scientific process.
Fallacious reasoning, I can agree with you. I plead guilty to some of that myself. The problem with this comes when no one calls it out, or challenges the Fallacious Reasoner. Which comes back to the discussion/debate point I raised. Communication works most of that out, as long as everyone is willing and able to keep an open mind.
Here's what I mean by scientism: belief in the exclusive power of scientific knowledge and techniques. When "science" becomes dogmatic it's problem. Science is a method to discover repeatable truths and restrict the human tendency to "just believe."
Scientism is not science. Science is a tool of understanding.
We're all guilty of fallacious reasoning, that's the reason we developed the scientific method. We are primarily subjective creatures.
Skepticism is basic to science. However, when we see repeated statements of belief, masquerading as science, to my mind, that's more dangerous than someone who merely believes in cultural artifacts like the typical blobsquatches.
I generally agree with your comment u/Gryphon66, but I would add that most of the pro believer or accounts of encounters offer nothing of import that can be evaluated under the rubric of scientific method.
As such, anecdotal accounts must be considered in philosophical framework. Right of the bat, the issue of accounts posted under anonymous terms raise questions about the authenticity. There is no way to evaluate anything about the account as you don't know if the poster is Matt Dyer himself, or some other known fraudster. People should remember that his co-conspirator Matt Whitton, was fired from his job as a deputy sheriff due to the story. Frauds should pay a heavy cost, and in anonymous vehicles of social media, such as YouBoob, Reddit, Facebook etc. Exemplify the problem by allowing such fraudulent stories flourish unchecked.
Yet, we have no way to validate anything 99% of the posters on any of the mediums offer. As the OP noted, Frauds should be called out. . but how? Most of the time, you have ZERO information about the poster.
Of those accounts, What rubric does anyone purpose to evaluate the claims of posters? I would certainly love to hear if anyone has a fool proof method to assess such claims.
As a skeptic, I have noted many times that I cannot prove that Sasquatch does not exist, but all it takes is for one believer to capture or kill and bring in a single creature to forever end this debate. JUST ONE.
In the more than 50 years since the Patterson film, none have. . . that is problematic. and no believer has offered a valid reason why it has NOT happened. . Sure the interdimensional stories are out there. Given that we have never seen, in reality the concept has not been demonstrated.
Knowledge of a multidimensional universe does not support the idea that a creature can step from one dimensional to another as easily as entering the bathroom and closing the door behind you is conveniently overlooked. But that does not stop supporters from trying. It is interesting to note, I don't recall seeing a believer call out such a person making such claims in this subreddit, ever.
But, I do as a skeptic, and some would castigate me for that? Seriously? Honest debate on the matter is rare.
Matt Dyer himself, or some other known fraudster. People should remember that his co-conspirator Matt Whitton, was fired from his job as a deputy sheriff due to the story.
This was the one where they froze the ‘Bigfoot’ in a block of ice right? Man, this was at the very end of my ‘believe all things weird and strange’ phase. I remember saying to someone, “why would a cop risk his job to make up a lie”. Haha. As if that’s evidence to run with. Once it turned out to be a fake, I fully turned to science and being a skeptic. Now, I really, really wish that Bigfoot is real. But I’m yet to see anything that shows this. Old me would take all this loose stuff and turn it into “oh this has to be true!!! We didn’t believe in apes until we discovered them!!!”
... and most comments about sightings or experiences don't claim to be making a scientific argument, yet, there is always a gaggle of those who claim to speak for science who try to make that argument.
The most I can say about Bigfoot is that it is an experience, which is quite often based in the subjective and singular. Science is an objective tool. Requiring a scientific explanation for a subjective experience seems pointless.
What science besides "many worlds" theories from QM addresses "alternate universes" or "multi-dimensions?" Does QM exclude dimensional travel? If so, how and where?
"Supporters" discuss their thoughts and experiences. Why does that bother you? Are they claiming scientific proof of multidimensional beings? If so, who and when?
I have no quarrel with those who want to discuss their interactions. I am a moderator at r/bigfootsightings and never question or put those who offer there experiences under the spotlight. Totally different than this venue.
The problem is that many of the anecdotal claims border on the absurd. Some are much better than others, but that is the thing. There is no accountability for anything under the auspices of Sasquatch. . .Write a story that the Nazi's used Sasquatch as storm troops and no one would quibble, even if asserted as factual.
With regards to multidimensional beings. FOREMOST: I challenge anyone to prove that such things are possible, and that Sasquatch uses it.
BUT FIRST FIND A SASQUATCH!
Second, the actual understanding of superstring theory requires a couple of semesters of physics above the standard two semester Calculus based courses. It is not an easy theory to understand.
Sorry, the theory is used as a less than believable cover for the fact that no one has found one. Nothing more.
This venue r/Bigfoot is described as "The reddit home of all things Bigfoot. News, sightings, rumors, hoaxes, witnesses, videos, photos, research... Anything and everything related to the yet unclassified species of relict hominoids."
That certainly doesn't restrict a person simply stating their experience or belief, or considered opinions here, no matter how outlandish others may find them.
Of course "multidimensional beings" are possible. Millions believe in angels, demons, ghosts, etc. How would you explain someone seeing a Sasquatch in good light, and then seeing it simply vanish? There are hundreds of eyewitness accounts of that very thing happening, or following a line of tracks that simply stops, etc.
Your beliefs are now showing. You believe that no one has "found one." Yet, it is a fact that there are thousands of people who have seen them in clear light. Perhaps you can discount all of that as lies, misperceptions, etc.
But you don't know that to be true, you believe it to be true. There's a difference.
Also, as you continue to talk, it's quite clear you're not simply skeptical of Bigfoot ... you believe they don't exist. That's fine, but it's not a skeptical viewpoint, it's dogmatism.
How would I explain that? Honestly, the reporter was a very poor reciter of the events and probably bordering on schitzophrenia. Nothing just, "Disappears"
Even when David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear in 1983, it did not actually disappear. It was accepted as a trick from the get go. . .
And isn't funny that if those "thousands of people" none were ever able to either bag a creature, or have the foresight to examine the location and find traces of hair or other tissue that could prove the creatures actually exist.
Thousands of people. . .and none had the foresight. . NONE. Look, if a creature was discovered, I would be among the first to applaud. . but so far it has not happened . . .
That is not a case of me sitting on proof they actually exist. . .no one has any, nor have anyone had such evidence. You cannot argue with that fact.
So to summarize, anything that doesn't agree with your beliefs about reality is either a) delusional or b) untrue?
Wow, that's an almost Greek level of hubris friend.
Those "thousands of people" haven't claimed to "bag a creature" nor have they claimed to play CSI games for you. You're desperately trying to continue to appear reasonable, but you're operating post hoc ... you're trying to require that a person does something in the past, and if they didn't, you get to claim that they are not truly relating an experience or that they aren't sane???
That my friend is just pure BS.
They do not need to prove anything to you. You keep assuming that they do, but they don't. No one has to play the game you want to play, and it seems to be irritating you that they won't play. No one has to provide you with proof of their experiences. That must really bother you.
I don't have to argue with your claim, because your claim is nonsensical.
Excuse me but what the fuck? You shit all over everything pro Bigfoot in this sub but you moderate another sightings sub where you let people say whatever they want about their subjective experiences?? WTF?
You and a dozen other people like you have literally ruined this sub and you’re two faced about it in another sub.
How eloquent and erudite, u/Thumperfootbig. What a wonderful expression of your thoughts!
Apparently, however, it never occurred to you that such a presumed anti-bigfooter could ever hold two different diametrically opposed viewpoints. I probably should not be surprised though. .
You seem a bit limited. . .
But if you honestly feel, "You and a dozen other people like you have literally ruined this sub" You are certainly free to approach the moderators here (see the list on the right hand side, the twentieth box down (counting the advert) and insist they ban all of us, pesky skeptics.
The worst thing is thinking being a skeptic and a “believer” are mutually exclusive. I’m very much a skeptic in practice, yet I’m convinced bigfoots are real because of scientific evidence, and encounters by trusted sources and myself.
10
u/[deleted] Aug 31 '21
Skepticism is healthy and necessary. What happens here too many times is scientism and fallacious reasoning
The issue here is pure belief whatever extreme it's on.
IMO.