... What I mean is that in the world of Bigfoot discussion and debate the term "skeptic" is conventionally conveniently used for somebody who thinks that Bigfoot does not exist, or that the presented Bigfoot evidence does not support its existence..."
-strikethrough, "conveniently", and emphasis added
Skeptic, skepticism, etc are used here in unconventional, but convenient ways, at least in my opinion. I'm not sure if you want to argue or not William Parcher, but for the most part I care very little about the issue. I tend to use the terms Skeptic, skepticism, etc. in a classical (or maybe neo-classical) sense, more related to a "school" of thought. Not everyone does. I also tend to participate in rhetorical or skeptical discussion because I enjoy the argument, regardless of the truth or the subject. I am also a Stoic, in the classic sense. So, I don't tend to get butt-hurt over arguments, although I enjoy heated debate or arguments. So, I don't think you use Skeptic or skepticism correctly but you can use it any way you want. Again, I think skepticism is part of the argument and process of moving toward the truth, but it is not the conclusion. I think it is being used here, and in the realm of bigfoot, more often out of convenience and not conventionally.
Say bigfoot does exist. Say one is found tomorrow. Are any of the current tracks or prints, or tree breaks, or scats, or any other "evidence" bigfoot related? Does any of that evidence support the existence of bigfoot? In my opinion, the evidence doesn't change. It either supports bigfoot's existence or it doesn't. It either supports it yesterday, today and tomorrow, or it doesn't. If bigfoot is found or "proved" to exist the evidence is what it is, and what it always has been. So, the evidence likely does support it's existence, if it exists. Since I haven't made a conclusion I can be skeptical of the evidence, skeptical of the existence. If you've made the conclusion then all of the "evidence" must not support the existence. So, again, if later this afternoon bigfoot walks out of the woods much like Ishi and we are presented with it's existence how do you account for the current body of evidence? I can say I don't believe in bigfoot, and I am skeptical of the evidence. It doesn't mean that bigfoot doesn't exist though, or that none of the evidence supports the existence of bigfoot. The sightings, footprints, trackways, etc. do support the existence of bigfoot (unless they are hoaxes, mis-ids, hallucinations, etc.), but it doesn't mean bigfoot exists. That is why I am skeptical of the evidence or existence of bigfoot.
