The use of varied, creative and colorful terms to describe “skeptics” is to help distinguish the types of skeptics. It’s one thing to be skeptical, it’s another to be pathological about it.

My two cents on it anyway.

He was once as denialist as they come. But he started adopting other angles.

I don’t so much go for labels. But I don’t like “skeptic” being used the way cryptos use it. You can have skeptics on all sides of a question. (Never - never - only two sides to a question.) They can all have reasons true to skepticism in its finest form for what they think.

I don’t like debating how many skeptical-advocates, denialists, scofftics, acryptics and agnostocryptoids can dance on the pointed head of a sasquatch. It stops us talking about search parameters for undocumented critters.

Which is, um, what this is about…?

“I don’t like the word skeptic either. Using skeptic implies that advocates of the possibility of a zoological explanation behind the sasquatch phenomenon are not skeptical. Skeptical advocate is not an oxymoron.”

Actually, I like the word, and for precisely the above reason. OK, sort of.

What I see is “skeptic” being given a meaning IT DOES NOT HAVE. The chief advocates for the sasquatch are skeptics. They evaluate evidence with a jaundiced eye. While they may occasionally overstep, and pronounce unwarranted conclusions, they are, primarily, skeptics when it comes to this question. They seek evidence; when they find it, they evaluate it for quality and decide what, if anything, can be done with it. I think that the above comment that everyone’s a skeptic, on something or other, is worth thinking about here. We’re pigeonholing that word, and giving it a nastiness and opprobrium it doesn’t possess.

The JREF folks (just go there if you don’t believe me) do not warrant the term skeptic. What they are, at least what they are on crypto questions - whether it’s given a one-word description or not matters nil to me - is something not really worth the time it takes to wade through it.

Their position is “if you take this position - which we are demonstrably in no position to criticize, one way or the other - you are a fool.”

That’s not skepticism. That’s belief, dogma. The Spanish Inquisition was similar, if yeah, a lot nastier. JREF can simply be dismissed. I’m not sure it does crypto any good to even give these guys any time at all. Let ‘em play in their own pen. Who needs it here?

Proponent is another good one. As to the usage of ‘believer’ that doesn’t bother me. After all, ‘believer’ simply means “to accept as true”.

That’s all I’ll say on the matter.

I take issue with folks who dismiss things on an a priori basis (unless the idea being considered is logically impossible like married bachelors). “Scoftic” implies cynicism and derision, and is not best for polite conversation.

I don’t like the word skeptic either. Using skeptic implies that advocates of the possibility of a zoological explanation behind the sasquatch phenomenon are not skeptical. Skeptical advocate is not an oxymoron.

Would crypto-agnostic be appropriate for those who don’t dismiss the subject but are waiting for better evidence? Agnocryptic?

For those who deny the possibility of cryptozoological creatures, I’ve used the term “acryptic,” a parallel to atheistic. The term focuses on the notion that is being denied instead of the manner in which a person expresses their doubt. In contrast, “scoftic” focuses on the manner, not the subject.

I’ve known no atheist who objected to the term, and some who used “atheist” to describe themselves. Again, the focus is on the subject being doubted and not the manner. No judgement or evaluation is implied in the term. I don’t think any atheist would care to be called infidel, blasphemer, or pagan.

I also don’t like the term “believer” due to the connotations of faith, religion, and potentially zealotry. Daegling uses “advocate” in Bigfoot Exposed. If a label has to be used for semantic shorthand, I’m fine with that.