The Atheist, I've been thinking about what you're saying, and I think you've made some serious tactical errors.
First and foremost, let me say that I agree with you that things aren't exactly rational in this forum. The way the folks on this forum approach bigfoot--and in fact the majority of skeptical topics--reeks of dogma and has more in common with religious fanaticism. Folks are more concerned with everyone accepting the "right" answer than with the process. Furthermore, I actually think that the concept of bigfoot isn't wholely irrational. The presence of large hominins in Asia establishes the possibility for invasion of the Americas by those hominins; after all, humans did it.
The point where we diverge is that I take the arguments seriously, and you condemn me for it. There's a lot of similarity between your criticisms of my posts and the criticisms of Creationists I've run up against. To take something seriously in science means to analyse it using the criteria of science--criteria that are established to ensure the accuracy of the data and the validity of the conclusions of the debate. The ICZN wasn't established out of the blue, it was created to solve real problems in biology that were crippling the field of study. So when I take bigfoot folks seriously, I apply precisely the same standards to them as I apply to, say, a paleontologist saying he's found an intermediate decapod or a biologist saying she's found an extant organism thought to be extinct. And your criticisms haven't been about tone or the like--note that even you couldn't find an example of abusive language in my post--but rather attacked substantive aspects of scientific investigation as such!
We need some physical object in part (more significant in the past, less so now) to ensure that there actually is something worth talking about. Exceptions are granted, but are typically limited to situations where the type specimens existed but were destroyed during WWII.
We need a rigorous comparisons against other organisms (and that's another thing the physical object helps with) because that's literally how we identify new organisms. There's no other option, and no rational alternative.
We need to assess the reputation of the researchers when they present any other type of data (physical remains speak for themselves) because fraud is so easy to perpetrate these days. Anyone can make a video of practically anything.
You dismissed this all as me arguing that science is a religion, for...reasons? I guess? You offered NO alternative, nor any justification for criticizing the self-evident fact that when discussing organisms we're dealing with biology.
Unfortunately, you've chosen to attack people, rather than consider their arguments. I would have been on your side,
had you addressed the arguments. You really need to consider this.
OntarioSquatch said:
The post that I made on the first page basically points out the common issues with arguments that are made in support of the claim that cryptids don't exist. It's interesting to read some of the responses here. I already knew beforehand that the examples are correct, but I was curious to see what the people here think of it. If anything, this thread further shows that the posts made by some of these so-called skeptics on the subject of Bigfoot are made up of nothing but denial and personal attacks. It's not real skepticism at all. Whatever it is, it's messed up.
So I assume you won't be picking up a copy of "Asking the Right Questions" any time soon?
