That would be interesting if anyone actually did present the results of studies in social and cognitive sciences, but then the debate would actually be supported with science.
Well, I think the
subject and study of folklore would be the place to look. Bigfoot/Sasquatch is a part of American and Canadian folklore. Are you looking for a scientific paper that says that folks have talked about nonexistent creatures as if they really did exist? What would you want to see in a study that supports BF skepticism in ways that skeptics are not already using or arguing?
So what you are telling me here is that it's not up to a skeptic to present anything backed by scientific findings when in a debate about sasquatch, but it is ok to rely on a default position that science doesn't support the belief in sasquatch and anyone that does is a "Woo". Further, it is ok to make claims or statements that are not supported by science, as long as it contradicts the belief in sasquatch, simply because the belief in sasquatch is not supported by the quality of evidence that is claimed.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Skepticism is always reactionary. A skeptic can be anyone. A person becomes a skeptic when they react with doubt to a claim. Skeptics and skepticism do not exist without prior claims to react to. Nobody came out and said "Bigfoot does not exist" before somebody came out and said "Bigfoot exists".
Bigfoot skepticism (beyond simply saying "I doubt it, or no way") requires some intellectual creativity combined with factual knowledge or resources. Although there are generally applicable counter-arguments, you will constantly have to adapt your argument to any specific claimant. In nearly every situation, a stalemate of sorts will be reached. Only in some cases through argument will a BF skeptic convert to a BF believer, or vice-versa.
Eliminating names or name-calling (woo, scoftic, etc.) doesn't really change anything when it comes to the actual nuts and bolts of the debate. The believers still can't prove they are right, and the skeptics cannot either.
When you ask if it's "ok" for a skeptic to make claims against Bigfoot without a science paper at the ready - I start to wonder if you are making a request for an Ultimate Universal Arbitrator. Like some committee somewhere which decides if arguments or disputes are fair in their presentation and support. You see this happen with
the burden of proof which gets tossed back and forth in BF threads like a hot potato.
How are you, or anyone here, making a "Stand"? Do you work at a genetics lab where DNA is submitted and examine alleged sasquatch hairs, only to find they come from a horse? Do you work for any research lab and have alleged sasquatch examined? Do you approach or are approached by anyone claiming to have evidence and then do anything to analyze it in any way? Do you do any experimentation to show how any of these things could be created?
Or do you, like everybody else, just make comments on an internet forum? Nothing wrong with that, but let's be honest, it is what it is, not some grandiose stand is being made.
Trying to get back to your first use of "standing"... the BF skeptics' primary standing is that we have no physical biological evidence for Bigfoot and we really should have that at this point in time (history) if Bigfoot exists. Underlying that is the general presumption that if Bigfoot biological material were presented to qualified examiners (science) it would quickly become known and announced to the world by way of mass media. A genuine Bigfoot confirmation would indeed be the science and social big news of the 21st Century. So at least for myself, I'm confident that I would be informed of the confirmed existence of Bigfoot via the headline news.
C'mon now, you're an intelligent guy, you don't have to keep turning your head to avoid seeing that you are pretty much on equal ground with everybody else who wastes the amount of time we do with this subject, and the lobbing of "Scoftic" and "Woo" back and forth is just a childish game that has little or nothing to do with any scientific value any of these debates on sasquatch's existence may have.
You didn't even mention the name "Pattycake" which I made up to designate someone who thinks Patty is a real Bigfoot. Like "Scoftic", it's a quick and easy way to denote a group without a lengthy descriptive name. I wouldn't take offense to being called a scoftic, but I might argue that the term doesn't always fit me according to Knights' original definition. He wanted it to mean somebody who doesn't even look at the evidence before declaring Bigfoot a myth. Well gosh darn, I sure do look at the evidence.
Something else I should mention. This online BF skepticism thing can get pretty boring without humor and interesting tangents. Often the humor is targeted and barbed and aimed at the believers; the ones that are sometimes called Woo.
