If you don't see the harm in many of those topics then where have you been on this forum?
Last edited:
If you don't see the harm in many of those topics then where have you been on this forum?
The Shrike
Philosopher
A man in Oklahoma was shot last month by his friend who thought he (the victim) was a bigfoot.
A man was killed on the highway last year whilst perpetuating a bigfoot prank.
A couple were nearly shot by a bigfoot hunter, also in Oklahoma, in 2010.
Many people have invested their money on fraudulent bigfoot claims.
A tenured, full professor at a major research university in the US is selling plaster casts of fake bigfoot prints.
In bigfootery there is fraud, there are gullible people spending their limited resources on nonsense, there is a conspiracy-laden, anti-science outlook promoted among the masses, there have been near misses and at least one actual death - with the promise of more given the current emphasis on "collecting a bigfoot for science."
Why shouldn't the JREF address bigfootery? If it's not your cup of tea, so what? Get over yourself. You don't get to dictate what is skepticism and what is not. You want to bang on about religion? Knock yourself out - I might even join you in a thread. But religion isn't the only game in town.
A man was killed on the highway last year whilst perpetuating a bigfoot prank.
A couple were nearly shot by a bigfoot hunter, also in Oklahoma, in 2010.
Many people have invested their money on fraudulent bigfoot claims.
A tenured, full professor at a major research university in the US is selling plaster casts of fake bigfoot prints.
In bigfootery there is fraud, there are gullible people spending their limited resources on nonsense, there is a conspiracy-laden, anti-science outlook promoted among the masses, there have been near misses and at least one actual death - with the promise of more given the current emphasis on "collecting a bigfoot for science."
Why shouldn't the JREF address bigfootery? If it's not your cup of tea, so what? Get over yourself. You don't get to dictate what is skepticism and what is not. You want to bang on about religion? Knock yourself out - I might even join you in a thread. But religion isn't the only game in town.
I have been browsing here for a long time even though I don't post much. Lately the Bigfoot obsession threads on this page have started to annoy me. Sorry. I just think the demographic that is passionate about Bigfoot is less than 1%. It seems out of proportion. It's like using a pile driver to kill a gnat. Piling on a few Bigfoot believers is like a zombie turkey shoot considering the profound intellect I have seen demonstrated on these forums. I know I can't dictate who is passionate about what. When probably 80% or more believe in religion and SCAM, I would prefer the pile driver be used on that.
barehl
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,655
That wasn't the question. I was asking you to explain why those topics were better or worse than a bigfoot topic. You've singled out bigfoot so I would like to know why.
I myself don't read stuff that continues to annoy me.
Can you confirm that figure, and . . . so what?
There are a number of folks here who post on religion threads, though I don't know how profound you might find their intellect. Maybe they're not up to your standards.
barehl
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 2,655
Which religious topic would you like me to comment on?
Frozenwolf150
Formerly SilentKnight
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,134
I was going to ask the same thing, but I've read the responses, which have answered my question fairly well. While cryptozoology might not be the most widespread belief, it's still potentially dangerous and promotes its share of ignorance and scams. My personal priority, of course, is to focus on religious fundamentalism and everything that entails.
It's hard for me to rank the various types of beliefs in terms of how much harm they can do though. I think it's largely subjective. Politics and social issues should be at the top of the list, but I tend to stay out of those discussions for a reason.
It's hard for me to rank the various types of beliefs in terms of how much harm they can do though. I think it's largely subjective. Politics and social issues should be at the top of the list, but I tend to stay out of those discussions for a reason.
Generally /frequently a 'footer starts the thread or the 'footers publish some crap about new incontrovertible proof they will show in a few months. Then they go hide in their parent's basements with their 9/11 conspiracy buddies to cuddle and feast on fecal matter till their next assault on reality.
Jodie
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 6,231
There is plenty of harm that has happened before, and will happen again, based on what some groups describe regarding their efforts hunting the snipe foot previously pointed out above.
The better question would be why would a skeptic need or bother to respond to the most patently absurd claims. That answer varies depending on who you ask, and some didn't particularly like the question when it was asked. Why do you suppose some of these skeptics didn't like their motives for participation in these threads questioned?
The better question would be why would a skeptic need or bother to respond to the most patently absurd claims. That answer varies depending on who you ask, and some didn't particularly like the question when it was asked. Why do you suppose some of these skeptics didn't like their motives for participation in these threads questioned?
The Shrike
Philosopher
Additional observations regarding bigfootery: there is a deep connection between bigfoot belief and religious fundamentalism. In particular, it appears that some Mormons feel that proof of Bigfoot would somehow bolster their goofy scam religion.
Also, if Bigfoot is so unpopular, how do we explain it's massive popularity on television, in advertising, etc? I think "Finding Bigfoot" is in it's third season, for example.
To me, that's what makes it dangerous woo: Bigfoot is a massively popular phenomenon that promotes an anti-science agenda.
Also, if Bigfoot is so unpopular, how do we explain it's massive popularity on television, in advertising, etc? I think "Finding Bigfoot" is in it's third season, for example.
To me, that's what makes it dangerous woo: Bigfoot is a massively popular phenomenon that promotes an anti-science agenda.
Happy 13th!
idoubtit
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 3, 2007
- Messages
- 365
I hope that the 2013 TAM panel on cryptozoology gets posted on YouTube eventually where you can see me, Daniel Loxton, Don Prothero and Blake Smith talking about this topic.
As many have said, it's interesting, it's MORE POPULAR THAN EVER, and it's a chance to talk to the public about real vs bad science or pseudoscience. Kids love monsters. Finding Bigfoot gets a million viewers a week. People really believe this stuff. Check out the growth of cryptozoology as literature (fiction and nonfiction) and as leisure activity. It's absolutely an obligation for skeptics to answer the ridiculous claims. (Abominable Science was highly cited by prestigious outlets.)
As one who has written a lot on how Bigfootery "sounds sciencey", I'd opine that this is a perfect topic to engage kids in critical thinking. Perusing the juvenile nonfiction at the library and Animal Planet (my kid's favorite channel) on TV, you can see the pathetic examples of "facts" pushed to kids. I certainly think that this is a prime stage to engage people with critical thinking. And, I'm willing to spar with the Matt Moneymakers of the world and be called the pejoritive "Bigfoot Skeptic" to do it.
Melba's Bigfoot DNA story was a top hit category this year on Doubtful News and the readers voted it the top Doubtful Story. Not only is there a demand for pro-Bigfoot, I'll attest there is a demand for skeptical commentary.
See: http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/01/the-best-of-doubtful-news-2013-this-is-not-a-hoax/
As many have said, it's interesting, it's MORE POPULAR THAN EVER, and it's a chance to talk to the public about real vs bad science or pseudoscience. Kids love monsters. Finding Bigfoot gets a million viewers a week. People really believe this stuff. Check out the growth of cryptozoology as literature (fiction and nonfiction) and as leisure activity. It's absolutely an obligation for skeptics to answer the ridiculous claims. (Abominable Science was highly cited by prestigious outlets.)
As one who has written a lot on how Bigfootery "sounds sciencey", I'd opine that this is a perfect topic to engage kids in critical thinking. Perusing the juvenile nonfiction at the library and Animal Planet (my kid's favorite channel) on TV, you can see the pathetic examples of "facts" pushed to kids. I certainly think that this is a prime stage to engage people with critical thinking. And, I'm willing to spar with the Matt Moneymakers of the world and be called the pejoritive "Bigfoot Skeptic" to do it.
Melba's Bigfoot DNA story was a top hit category this year on Doubtful News and the readers voted it the top Doubtful Story. Not only is there a demand for pro-Bigfoot, I'll attest there is a demand for skeptical commentary.
See: http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/01/the-best-of-doubtful-news-2013-this-is-not-a-hoax/
jerrywayne
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,083
Many moons ago I thought Bigfoot was probably real. Over the years Bigfootery itself disabused me of that position.
I'm still fascinated by the whole phenomenon, though. Mysteries interest me. How did we get to the point where a lot of people believe the North American continent is home habitat of the largest species of ape living today? Without a modicum of hard evidence, mind you.
A short answer is found in the promotion of inconclusive evidence to virtually the status of hard, conclusive evidence. This is the hallmark of pseudo-science.
Another answer is the confusion at the heart of Bigfootery. On the surface, the quest for Bigfoot seems to be just a wildlife or zoological issue. Viewed this way, Bigfoot questing is about discovering a new species previously unknown to science. This quest for discovery is commendable, maybe even heroic, right?
Below the surface though, Bigfootery is a seductive romance. It is monster hunting. It is belief in a modern bestiary. The Bigfoot quest has updated the midieval bestiary with Darwinian apes or biblical feral humans. It is modern folklore generally not recognized as such. The tension between what Bigfooters think they are about, species discovery and scientific adventure, crashes into the reality of the quest -- monster hunting without a real monster. This tension is not sustainable and sometimes leads to unstable, angry questers.
What real harm is there in Bigfoot questing, the OP asks, and why should skeptics care. There is the issue of unchallenged false belief and its corrosive effect on a democratic society. There is the issue of understanding the nature of science. There is the issue of excitable amateurs and apprehensive questers in the woods well armed. There is the issue of wasted, obsessed lives, questing and questing even to the point of losing their families. There is the issue of folks charmed to the point of being openly delusional. There is the issue of fraud. There is the issue of openly capitulating to paranormalism.
In short, there are issues with Bigfootery. If skeptics won't expose such issues, who will?
I'm still fascinated by the whole phenomenon, though. Mysteries interest me. How did we get to the point where a lot of people believe the North American continent is home habitat of the largest species of ape living today? Without a modicum of hard evidence, mind you.
A short answer is found in the promotion of inconclusive evidence to virtually the status of hard, conclusive evidence. This is the hallmark of pseudo-science.
Another answer is the confusion at the heart of Bigfootery. On the surface, the quest for Bigfoot seems to be just a wildlife or zoological issue. Viewed this way, Bigfoot questing is about discovering a new species previously unknown to science. This quest for discovery is commendable, maybe even heroic, right?
Below the surface though, Bigfootery is a seductive romance. It is monster hunting. It is belief in a modern bestiary. The Bigfoot quest has updated the midieval bestiary with Darwinian apes or biblical feral humans. It is modern folklore generally not recognized as such. The tension between what Bigfooters think they are about, species discovery and scientific adventure, crashes into the reality of the quest -- monster hunting without a real monster. This tension is not sustainable and sometimes leads to unstable, angry questers.
What real harm is there in Bigfoot questing, the OP asks, and why should skeptics care. There is the issue of unchallenged false belief and its corrosive effect on a democratic society. There is the issue of understanding the nature of science. There is the issue of excitable amateurs and apprehensive questers in the woods well armed. There is the issue of wasted, obsessed lives, questing and questing even to the point of losing their families. There is the issue of folks charmed to the point of being openly delusional. There is the issue of fraud. There is the issue of openly capitulating to paranormalism.
In short, there are issues with Bigfootery. If skeptics won't expose such issues, who will?
As time goes on I'm getting less and less patient with these apologetic "I don't understand why saying Woo is wrong is so important to skeptics" threads.
I don't have to justify why people spreading false information bothers me.
And I fail to see the point of making of point of not understanding why something is being discussed. If you don't have a pony on track no one is forcing you to watch the race.
I don't have to justify why people spreading false information bothers me.
And I fail to see the point of making of point of not understanding why something is being discussed. If you don't have a pony on track no one is forcing you to watch the race.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Yes, it is true in a bit of a loose sense. Lobsters and jellyfish are two examples. The microscopic hydra is another.