Kit, here is the definition by the man who came up with the word.
By “scoftic” [I mean] someone who…gives witness testimony no weight whatsoever, on ideological grounds, and who asserts numerous other bits of unreasonable dogma, such as that the quantity of reports is insignificant. Scofticism is thus fanaticism behind a pose of reasonableness. The reasonable pose is “show me the evidence.” The “fine print” is all the qualifiers, and all the hidden assumptions and misdirections.
A nutshell definition of scofticism would be “scientism in disguise,” although that’s not quite accurate….Another thumbnail definition is “a cranky skeptic.” ---Roger Knights
It's just a definition used to describe a behavior, just like the one you gave above for Bigfoot enthusiast.
Oh yippee, some more pseudo-intellectual blather yap from the ever-goofy, Roger Knights. Excuse me while I pummel that stupidity...
1) Oh heavens, no. I don't think the quantity of reports of Bigfoot sightings is insignificant at all. Bigfoot enthusiasts like to talk about how many hundreds of sightings are reported a year and the thousands in total. What they don't realize is that they effectively just kicked themselves in the nuts. They don't seem to get that talking about huge exorbitant numbers of sightings is actually damaging the credibility of their proposition. Right, OK, four hundred sightings a year and that chance for a type specimen, reliable evidence, or unambiguous imagery just keeps slipping through our grasp. How many people a year see a Javan rhino in the wild? and yet we have unambiguous video of what is probably the rarest large mammal on Earth living in remote, inaccessible, dense jungle. About 40–50 live in Ujung Kulon National Park on the island of Java in Indonesia and a small population, estimated in 2007 to be no more than eight, survives in Cat Tien National Park in Vietnam. Bigfoot, on the other hand, apparently has a more succesful range than the grizzly bear, black bear, an cougar and is allegedly seen hundreds of times all across two of the most industrialized nations on the planet.
I think Roger Knights fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.
See, now I'm being insulting. I think Roger Knights is an idiot.
2) I would not completely dismiss alleged sightings. I would be very interested to hear about a group of wildlife biologists or similar scientists and expert observers have a group encounter of a Bigfoot at close range doing something that would make it very difficult to be a man in a suit or misidentification. If park rangers in a place like Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington state kept logging close encounters with Bigfoots and had consistent details that would make a hoax or misidentification very difficult, I'd be very interested. That would really get my attention. It wouldn't be proof but it would be a lot better than anything you guys are trotting around at Bigfoot conventions now.
Roger Knights is one of those people that isn't half as bright as he thinks he is.
Can you name three? Yes, but why name names?
Indulge me. You guys throw around the term "scoftic" so freely (even though most Bigfooters consider the term to be quite stupid now and worn out) that I think you should be able to have the beans to actually tag some specific people with it. You tagged me, let's see you tag three more. I'm guessing you'll tag anyone here who thought you were lying.
Am I a scoftic? If we go by the definition above, yes.
Interesting that you would label me with an idiotic term while getting bothered that I use one that your own fellow Bigfoot enthusiasts like Billy Willard and DB Donlon use. Seeing how Roger's definition was fall-down stupid, I'm not really worried. If you can show me unreasonably dismissing a legitimate proposition without due investigation, research, and consideration, you let me know. Then I will be worried about my own critical thinking skills.
Do I unfairly dismiss legitimate propositions and evidence unfairly without research and due consideration?
The propositions, yes.
Which propositions would those be, John? That despite the gong show of hoaxer idiots and Bigfoot enthusiasts farting around in the Salt Fork State Park in Ohio, that there may actually be a population of monster 9 ft wood apes obtaining 12,000+ kcal/day individually, breeding, making weirdo stick structures, chucking things at people, putting the stink on them, roaring like thunder, and screaming like dying ladies in places such as the handicapped picnic area and outside the ranger station amongst the 23 square miles of the park.
Well, since I've researched it and the alleged evidence in detail and confirmed that it is indeed as stupid as it sounds, I'm not to worried about being called a "scoftic" for that.
You don't have to label me at all. You can just call me John.
But Susan has such a nice ring to it.
I won't call you a Bigfoot enthusiast (even though it's perfectly appropriate) if it really bugs you but don't forget to tell all those guys like Billy, DB, Loren Coleman, etc to stop using it. Is there anything suitable for your tastes that isn't a misnomer like "Bigfoot researcher"?
There are many ways to resolve the issue that don't involve Bigfoot enthusiast chat rooms, internet radio shows, and conventions. That is not to say that you are to be criticized for following that path. You live in the United States of America, not Indonesia, and there are ways of resolving if there are gargantuan monster mammals in your neck of the woods. I've given you some of the essential information necessary which took me only a matter of minutes to think of and search out.
If it was so easy, why hasn't it been solved?
Your Bigfoot problem or the question in general?
For you I would say it's because you waste to much time in Bigfoot enthusiast chat rooms and internet radio shows and not enough talking to wildlife and enviromental experets in your area about what can and can't be there undiscovered.
In general, I'd say there's no problem. I'd say that all the available evidence points to Bigfoot being a social construct perpetuated by silly people playing an adult roleplaying game. Hoaxes, lies, midentifications, fantasies, etc. That's what I think Bigfoot is.
BTW, would you call yourself a cryptozoology enthusiast? Like, is it something you enjoy?
No, I call myself John, nice to meet you. The only "cryptid I am interested in is Bigfoot.Enjoy it? Not really. I enjoy the company of my friends.
Oh dear, that's not good. You should tell Melissa or somebody to fix this then:
Investigators of the American Bigfoot Society said:
John Cartwright, Virginia/North Carolina
John Cartwright is a lifelong resident of Norfolk/Virginia Beach,VA. He is a Administrator for a large company. He is 44 and single. He had a sighting of the animal in the fall of 1982 near the Great Dismal Swamp in North Carolina.
He became involved in research to help overcome trauma from his sighting. He began going into the field again in May 2008.
He joined Sasquatch Watch of Virginia in September 2008. In his spare time he enjoys writing, rock music, soccer and of course cryptozoology.
http://americanbigfootsociety.weebly.com/abs-investigators.html
Doh!
Hey, Melissa can you block that site from my IP address also? LOL
