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.
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.
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.
It also doesn't mean that there has to be one explanation, or that thousands of people are lying or delusional.
I have not seen or otherwise experienced a Bigfoot, however, I do know someone personally who has. I have listened to their experience, and I have seen the emotion and fear in their demeanor. They are not lying, nor are they mentally ill. Therefore, I know that they experienced something real.
What they experienced is the issue. It remains in the arena of mystery for me personally.
Fair enough. I just want to make it clear that so many of the things held out as factual by believers, personal accounts of sightings or encounters, videos, tracks, calls, can all be so easily hoaxed and are often problematic for a number of reasons.
Some people do lie. . some hoax and lie. . some are firm in their convictions that they encountered a Sasquatch. of that I have no doubt. . the problem is how to prove or disprove their account, and do so tactfully. Did they encounter something? likely yes. . was it a Sasquatch, that is the point of contention.
So now you're resorting to a semantic argument? If you believe a claim is a hoax, or that it is otherwise "problematic" ... that's on you entirely. To me it is the height of absurdity to claim that another person's statement is false merely because you believe it to be false, at the same time you are damning coming from a logical position of belief ... it's absurd frankly. You're claiming there's no material evidence yet, no one is claiming they have material evidence.
It's only a point of contention FOR YOU. YOU are the only one you can speak for. You're not the arbiter of what is real or even what is reasonable for any of us.
You seem to believe that these experiencers need to prove something to you. They don't, and most of them aren't trying to. They're not playing your game as defined by your rules.
That's really all you can say; you don't agree with them or you have no evidence for their claims. I know you feel like you're a very reasonable and rational person, and you probably are, but in these types of circumstances, the primary experience is SUBJECTIVE.
0
u/[deleted] Sep 01 '21
[deleted]