Seeing Cryptids: The Problems

[jerrywayne]

If the sissies in this video were truly scared, and ran like rabbits at some noises in the woods, had reported this as a BF encounter, they would be lying about their "encounter". Anyone who claims that such noises are BF are lying. All they can truthfully say is they heard some noises they could not identify.

For some reason it seems very important to you that there be "something" behind BF besides lies and hoaxes. Why is that?

The type of analysis you and others promote here is seriously truncated. It totally leaves out the most important element driving the Bigfoot phenomena:
personal belief! If you BELIEVE something, or have a serious BELIEF, you are less open to alternative explanations. If you come to believe in Bigfoot, then unusual sounds, brief sightings of something moving in the undergrowth, internet sighting reports, suggestive thermals, odd looking tracks, etc. are explainable by an appeal to your prior held BELIEF. It is evidence FOR your belief and because of your belief, you are blind to the limitations of your "evidence" or just stubbornly holding to it.

This happens to everyone because everyone has beliefs that are not demonstrable to cold reason, from the literalist who sees no errors or contradictions in the Bible to the conservative who truly thinks Fox News is "fair and balanced."

Are we to call everyone LIARS and CON-ARTISTS because they hold fast to beliefs that actually make no sense? If not, then why have we placed Bigfootery in a separate box and treated it as a totally unique phenomena?

 

[Dinwar]

^^ Curious. What skeptics do you think have argued, without evidence, that bigfoot does not exist? Where do you see a bigfoot does not exist because I say so, or my hunch is bigfoot does not exist, presented here?

Neither. I've seen "You're wrong because bigfoot does not exist" numerous times on this forum, howeverr. And starting from the conclusion one wishes to arive at is a specific type of fallacy.

No, I won't go into further details here. I'm not going to call out specific people just to satisfy your curiosity. I would, however, suggest that you actually examine the structure of some of the arguments made in some of these threads.

About Gigantopithecus, are we also supposed to consider the existence of leprechauns in our backyard as possible because of the discovery of the "Flores Man"?

I'm more than happy to do so. Obviously I don't believe in leprechauns as currently portrayed; however, I find the idea of certain mythical hominins being the result of adulteration of stories of actual encounters with actual hominins to be an interesting one. I'm not even sure how one would go about looking for evidence for it; Step 1 would be to go through the myths and try to re-create the originals, which may very easily prove to be impossible. However, there are examples of descriptions of real creatures being distorted and altered into absolutely fantastic creatures. Unicorns, for example, are thought to have originated with rhinos (though for my money muttaed cervids are more likely--there are mutations that give certain deer a single horn in the middle of the forehead, and mutations that make deer albino). Dragons have also underwent extensive revision; look at any Medieval picture of St. George and the thing that will strike you is how small the dragon is. So yeah, it's not actually implausible that stories of perechauns and the other fairie folk originated with encounters between H. sapiens and our close kin, which subsequently got distorted through the ages.

The reason that Giganto isn't a viable candidate is not because bigfoot doesn't exist; that would be begging the question. The reason Giganto isn't a viable candidate is that we have not found any evidence that the predictions made by such a model are true (ie, the concept requires Gigantos to be in specific places at specific times and we have searched those places extensively for fossils and not found any ape remains). After a few hundred years, I'm perfectly comfortable saying that the predictions are false. The experiment has been run, and continues to be run--in a way, I'm running it right now, in as much as I'm searching for fossils in areas where Giganto would have had to be and in the right time period (though the reason for me being here is completely unrelated to bigfoot). It doesn't pan out. It's a perfectly reasonable scientific question to ask "Did Giganto migrate into North America?" It only becomes unscientific when someone refuses to accept the data.

If the sissies in this video were truly scared, and ran like rabbits at some noises in the woods, had reported this as a BF encounter, they would be lying about their "encounter". Anyone who claims that such noises are BF are lying.

I'm not sure I'd go that far; they could be honestly mistaken (not about the sound, but about their ability to interpret the sound). That said, I will certainly agree that they are not being honest. As AronRa said, if you can't show it, you don't know it, and you shouldn't say it.

Are we to call everyone LIARS and CON-ARTISTS because they hold fast to beliefs that actually make no sense?

I'm not sure if you're serious or not; your post rides the edge of Poe's Law. Assuming you are, first, you are mistaken about beliefs and evidence (bigfoot's existence is a taxonomic question, and taxonomy has specific rules [the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, to be exact], so anyone claiming bigfoot exists must follow those rules). Second, anyone who takes money from people by knowingly giving them false information is by definition a con-artist. Anyone who misrepresents what they have experienced in order to falsify the details (ie, someone NOT engaged in hyperbole to make a point) is a liar. If your beliefs make no sense, you are either attempting to con someone or have been conned yourself. There's really no other options.

If you BELIEVE something, or have a serious BELIEF, you are less open to alternative explanations. If you come to believe in Bigfoot, then unusual sounds, brief sightings of something moving in the undergrowth, internet sighting reports, suggestive thermals, odd looking tracks, etc. are explainable by an appeal to your prior held BELIEF. It is evidence FOR your belief and because of your belief, you are blind to the limitations of your "evidence" or just stubbornly holding to it.

This is why the rulse for taxonomy exist--specifically, intentionally, and systematically to remove exactly this element from the equation. No one has to hold any beliefs about any species I name or describe; they can examine the evidence, including the type specimen, for themselves. Science is the rigorous and methodical removal of personal belief from the equation.

 

[jerrywayne]

I'm not sure if you're serious or not; your post rides the edge of Poe's Law. Assuming you are, first, you are mistaken about beliefs and evidence (bigfoot's existence is a taxonomic question, and taxonomy has specific rules [the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, to be exact], so anyone claiming bigfoot exists must follow those rules). Second, anyone who takes money from people by knowingly giving them false information is by definition a con-artist. Anyone who misrepresents what they have experienced in order to falsify the details (ie, someone NOT engaged in hyperbole to make a point) is a liar. If your beliefs make no sense, you are either attempting to con someone or have been conned yourself. There's really no other options.

This is why the rulse for taxonomy exist--specifically, intentionally, and systematically to remove exactly this element from the equation. No one has to hold any beliefs about any species I name or describe; they can examine the evidence, including the type specimen, for themselves. Science is the rigorous and methodical removal of personal belief from the equation.

You've misunderstood my post; perhaps the fault is with my presentation. I'm not really addressing evidence from a scientific point of view at all. What I am saying is this -- if you are a True Believer, whether it is in Bigfoot, UFOs, Tim Tebow, tax cuts raising revenues, etc. etc., you do not look at the relevant evidence objectively. You choose from the evidence the parts of it that confirm your belief and you are satisfied that you have given it credence.

The idea that Bigfootery consists overwhelmingly of knowing liars and con-artists, where anyone who claims to have seen a Bigfoot is a liar, every one who writes a book on Bigfoot is a liar, where everyone who finds a track and believes it is a Bigfoot foot print is a liar, where anyone who says the Patterson film looks real is a liar, where anyone who hears a barn owl and says he thinks it's Bigfoot is a liar, and where the sincere believer is more rare than Bigfoot itself, places the Bigfoot phenomenon in a class completely alone in the world of pseudo-science, not to mention the everyday world as well. Sorry --- I don't think so.

 

[William Parcher]

Jerry, how many times do you need to hear that not all Bigfooters are liars and also that not all are pretending to believe? Is this the 16th time now?

Will you need to hear that again in a few weeks?

 

[Dinwar]

You've misunderstood my post; perhaps the fault is with my presentation. I'm not really addressing evidence from a scientific point of view at all. What I am saying is this -- if you are a True Believer, whether it is in Bigfoot, UFOs, Tim Tebow, tax cuts raising revenues, etc. etc., you do not look at the relevant evidence objectively. You choose from the evidence the parts of it that confirm your belief and you are satisfied that you have given it credence.

Ah. Mia copa. It's been a long day; the confusion is entirely on my end!

The idea that Bigfootery consists overwhelmingly of knowing liars and con-artists, where anyone who claims to have seen a Bigfoot is a liar, every one who writes a book on Bigfoot is a liar, where everyone who finds a track and believes it is a Bigfoot foot print is a liar, where anyone who says the Patterson film looks real is a liar, where anyone who hears a barn owl and says he thinks it's Bigfoot is a liar, and where the sincere believer is more rare than Bigfoot itself, places the Bigfoot phenomenon in a class completely alone in the world of pseudo-science, not to mention the everyday world as well. Sorry --- I don't think so.

I agree. It's like Creationism: bigfoot belief can probably be divided into con-artists and those who have been taken in by them. The dupes are innocent of everything but credulity.

There's also an issue with the definition of "honest", and whether it's a dichotomy or not. Normal honesty--the vernacular use of the term--pretty much means "not saying things one knows are false". Intellectual honesty consists of that, PLUS "not saying things one doesn't have substantiating evidence to support"; thus my AronRa reference. Intellectual courage consists of "not refraining from saying things one can support". If one accepts those definitions--and I don't believe any to be controversial, they're the definitions I learned in my Critical Thinking class as an undergrad--the question becomes, what do we call people who violate those principles?

Take the Patterson film, for example. Let's say someone watches it and genuinely thinks it looks real. Unless they're a film expert or wildlife expert, we can pretty much rule out them having the capacity to make such an evaluation with any real rigor. So their statement violates the principle of intellectual honesty. Does that make them a liar? Personally, I'd say probably not. A lie, to me, is a statement that one knows is false (always assuming that the facts of the statement are relevant--fiction is by definition false, but to call it all a lie is not a fair evaluation). That said, we don't have a word for something which is not actually dishonest, but which also violates the principles of honesty.

That said, if you look at how self-identified skeptics (to differentiate them from the more rigorous philosophical skeptics) approach religion, you'll see that they are actually being consistent. They frequently call all religious believers liars, con-men, frauds, etc. That's one reason I refuse to discuss religion with any self-identified skeptic anymore (the other being their refusal to actually look at what theologists say before dismissing it, which is a violation of intellectual honesty). I will not get into this any further; I'm merely pointing out that these folks aren't really putting bigfoot in a class all its own.

 

[Dinwar]

Jerry, how many times do you need to hear that not all Bigfooters are liars and also that not all are pretending to believe? Is this the 16th time now?

Will you need to hear that again in a few weeks?

jerrywayne was correcting an obvious error on my part. To criticize him for doing so is not rational. Sure, he may have said it elsewhere and this may be discussed elsewhere, but that has no bearing on this event. Reitteration is completely warranted here.

 

[Castro]

...The reason that Giganto isn't a viable candidate is not because bigfoot doesn't exist; that would be begging the question. The reason Giganto isn't a viable candidate is that we have not found any evidence that the predictions made by such a model are true (ie, the concept requires Gigantos to be in specific places at specific times and we have searched those places extensively for fossils and not found any ape remains). After a few hundred years, I'm perfectly comfortable saying that the predictions are false. The experiment has been run, and continues to be run--in a way, I'm running it right now, in as much as I'm searching for fossils in areas where Giganto would have had to be and in the right time period (though the reason for me being here is completely unrelated to bigfoot). It doesn't pan out. It's a perfectly reasonable scientific question to ask "Did Giganto migrate into North America?" It only becomes unscientific when someone refuses to accept the data...

Bigfooters will never accept your conclusion and will ask you to continue your search indefinitly, just like for the DNA studies. It's an endless game and Science has nothing to win by playing it imho.

 

[Dinwar]

Bigfooters will never accept your conclusion and will ask you to continue your search indefinitly, just like for the DNA studies. It's an endless game and Science has nothing to win by playing it imho.

I put it in the same category as a grad student bull session--an interesting idea to play with, to keep your mind sharp. I don't know any scientist who hasn't discussed stupider ideas over a few pints.

Plus, if we wish to approach this from a scientific perspective (as opposed to a more general philosophical one, or a rhetorical one--both of which are valid, but different), we must admit that it's not inherently implausible. I can think of three taxa of similar size or larger that did exactly what they propose for Giganto, so it's not obvious that Giganto couldn't do it. Since the argument isn't implausible, it's worth five minutes of thought and a few minutes reading through some references I pull out any chance I get anyway. My point is, I can in full honesty say it's wrong, I can provide references to support my conclusion (which themselves are based on hard data), and I had fun doing it. If you don't enjoy research, don't take the scientific approach.

Finally, note that I put a timeframe into this. We know where to look. We know when to look. We know the types of environments that preserve these sorts of things. If we still haven't found them, odds are they don't exist. Contrary to standard dogma, you CAN prove a negative--the trick is to pin down the definitions.

 

[Castro]

^Ok, have fun! (even if I think that footers don't deserve any scientific attention)

 

[Dinwar]

^Ok, have fun! (even if I think that footers don't deserve any scientific attention)

Like I said, there are at least two other perspectives to look at the question from. And honestly, those are off the top of my head; there are probably more. My only point is that IF one wishes to approach this from a scientific perspective, THEN it is incumbant upon one to actually act as a scientist, which includes exploring the predictions from the proposed models. Obviously if one doesn't wish to approach this from a scientific perspective (and to be clear, this is 100% perfectly legitimate!), this statement doesn't hold true; other perspectives come with other obligations.

 

[William Parcher]

Finally, note that I put a timeframe into this. We know where to look. We know when to look. We know the types of environments that preserve these sorts of things. If we still haven't found them, odds are they don't exist. Contrary to standard dogma, you CAN prove a negative--the trick is to pin down the definitions.

Hopefully you won't mind that the Bigfooters insist on making the definitions and refusing yours. Nor mind that the goalposts get moved when you shoot for a score.

"If we still haven't found them, odds are they don't exist." That will be rejected and you will end up right where we are now.

They don't exist.
Yes they do.
No they don't.
Yes they do.

 

[captain koolaid]

Hopefully you won't mind that the Bigfooters insist on making the definitions and refusing yours. Nor mind that the goalposts get moved when you shoot for a score.

"If we still haven't found them, odds are they don't exist." That will be rejected and you will end up right where we are now.

They don't exist.
Yes they do.
No they don't.
Yes they do.

Damn straight. I know Bigfoot broke into my house and stole my pork and beans. He also took my widescreen tv, credit card and some cash. If there's no Bigfoot, what happened to my stuff, smart guy?

 

[tsig]

Like I said, there are at least two other perspectives to look at the question from. And honestly, those are off the top of my head; there are probably more. My only point is that IF one wishes to approach this from a scientific perspective, THEN it is incumbant upon one to actually act as a scientist, which includes exploring the predictions from the proposed models. Obviously if one doesn't wish to approach this from a scientific perspective (and to be clear, this is 100% perfectly legitimate!), this statement doesn't hold true; other perspectives come with other obligations.

Does the scientific method include ignoring the fact that there is no evidence for bigfoot?

 

[Dinwar]

Hopefully you won't mind that the Bigfooters insist on making the definitions and refusing yours. Nor mind that the goalposts get moved when you shoot for a score.

"If we still haven't found them, odds are they don't exist." That will be rejected and you will end up right where we are now.

This would be approaching the problem from the rhetorical perspective. I have already addressed this, and acknowledged its viability; all I've said was that IF YOU WISH TO APPROACH THIS FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, you have to address the fact that a few of their ideas are not completely irrational.

If you are not going to read what I write, preferring instead to look for excuses to dismiss me, please let me know and I will refrain from participating further.

 

[William Parcher]

IF YOU WISH TO APPROACH THIS FROM A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, you have to address the fact that a few of their ideas are not completely irrational.

I don't think anyone has said that Bigfoot cannot exist. The argument is that Bigfoot does not exist.

The available evidence shows that it doesn't exist. What is that evidence? The lack of any body or body part in over 400 years of continual opportunity to acquire that evidence. The absence of evidence is the evidence.

 

[Dinwar]

Thank you for demonstrating your lack of interest in what I'm actually saying. I will not persue this conversation furtherr.

 

[The Shrike]

The scientific perspective is that the places where bigfoots are claimed to be and would have to have been to get there have been thoroughly explored for centuries without a piece of a bigfoot ever coming forward. Thus, the only legitimate scientific conclusion to draw based on that evidence is that there is no bigfoot.

My interest in the subject stems largely from its plausibility. From Gigantopithecus to Meganthropus to an outsized Homo erectus or even giant, relic Australopithecus, there are multiple, potential antecedents for the creatures claimed to exist today. They just happen to . . . not.

 

[Dinwar]

The scientific perspective is that the places where bigfoots are claimed to be and would have to have been to get there have been thoroughly explored for centuries without a piece of a bigfoot ever coming forward. Thus, the only legitimate scientific conclusion to draw based on that evidence is that there is no bigfoot.

Allow me to demonstrate the problem with this statement: without knowing what the arguments of the bigfoot believers are, one CANNOT honestly make that statement. I wish to repeat this, as it is the crux of the issue: one CANNOT make that statement and maintain one's integrity as a scientist. To make that statement without fully evalutating the claims of the bigfoot believers is to commit precisely the same fallacy they commit.

The bigfoot believers have postulated a scenario that is not inherently implausible. Anyone with an understanding of North American mammalian megafauna must necessarily accept that similar migrations have occurred in the past, so it is not inherently irrational to entertain the notion that some ape other than our own species migrated here in the past. Therefore one must examine the evidence, just as one would examine any other scientific question, IF one wishes to claim a scientific perspective (note the caveat). One need not make a unique inquiry into this matter, obviously; if one has studied the migrations of Tertiary North American megafauna it is sufficient. But one must necessarily have that knowledge at hand. If one makes any statement whatever about the scientific accuracy of a claim that is not logically implausible without doing the requisite research, one is violating the bedrock, foundational, and critical principle of scientific research.

Put another way: if you can't show it, you don't know it and you shouldn't say it. This rule applies just as much to us as it does to anyone else--and in fact I would argue that it applies more.

Now, if you want to approach it from a philosophical angle, or a rhetorical one, or from some other angle entirely, that's completely different. I have made and am making no statements about that. If you think it's a waste of time to examine these claims from a scientific perspective, that's entirely valid; simply say so, and don't operate under the guise of science. I'm merely defending the principles of scientific research. I have heard much weirder theories than this, and I've seen them proven.

Honestly, I'm struggling to understand how anyone can object to this. If this were any field in which skeptics haven't been handed a ready-made answer, no one would question this; absolutely nothing I'm saying is in any way controversial, or even unique. But because it involves bigfoot, apparently skepticism consists of finding evidence and arguments to support our a priori conclusions.

 

[dmaker]

Dinwar, you say one must examine the evidence if one wishes to claim a scientific perspective. However there is no evidence to examine in this case. The foundation of the claim may be plausible, but the reality is that there is no physical evidence to support the claim. I'm not trying to be deliberately contentious, I'm simply trying to follow along with you and I'm stumbling on this point. If no evidence can be produced by bigfoot enthusiasts to support the claim and there is nothing in the fossil record to support the claim, the what should one be examining?

 

[Planigale]

Thanks for the suggestion WP.

Your post brings up an interesting question. Why do we post skeptically about Bigfoot?

1. Are our posts meant to change Bigfooters' minds about Bigfoot?

2. Are our posts meant to reinforce our own beliefs as skeptics about Bigfoot and to entertain one another?

3. Are our posts meant to offer possible non-Bigfoot solutions to Bigfoot phenomenon for those genuinely curious about it?

Perhaps it is a mixture of all three. But the idea that is gaining currency here at this skeptic blogsite, that virtually all of the Bigfoot phenomena is attributable to con-artists and liars, from people claiming to see Bigfoot to even those who write pro-Bigfoot books, is, I submit, for the benefit of number 2 above, and excludes 1 and 3.
.

I think you all secretly hope Sasquatch lurks on the JREF site and you will eventually convince him / her she does not exist and so like a Boojum hunter Sasquatch will softly and silently vanish away.