The error is in Assuming that those who disbelieve in such notions are merely skeptical and more objective than those who do believe in such possibilities.”

Springheeledjack: precisely.

The folks who have confirmed skeptics like me questioning the pat mainstream assumption that cryptids don’t exist are people who assemble observations, search for commonalities, perform statistical analyses, and posit sound hypotheses. Sounds like science.

The ones who can’t convince me they’re right are the ones who click heels three times and crow: PSEUDOSCIENCE! Their attitude seems best exemplified by another legendary primate, or more precisely three of them: the trio whose hands conveniently cover sensory orifices to prohibit entry or exit of anything - like fact - that makes them uncomfortable.

Except for the utter absence of any little nuggets to pick - they have a strong tendency to think you can prove the nonexistence of something - I’m not at all sure that I have better seen scoffiticism encapsulated in a sentence. As has been shown, many times, right on this site.

Thanks!

“Oh, I think I see the confusion: johnstownmonster misread the piece, and thought that I made a comment about ‘well-established ideas.’ He found it ridiculous, and Sergio agreed and carried it further. A little closer reading will reveal that the quote is from Dave Thomas, not me. Oops.”

…as a response to a general comment about what I think is a depressing thought on the part of some skeptics and modern scientists. This certainly seems like a somewhat hostile reaction to a general observation based on the article (which I did read, contrary to your assertions) that was in no way pointed directly at you.

The central idea I wrote about still seems very specious to me and doesn’t seem to support the spirit of open-minded discovery I would love to see a whole lot more of in the scientific community. Just an observation and an honest feeling.

To CryptoHaus_Press, all I have to say is that you make a false statement lumping all crypto hunters into the category of saying “yay” against the scientists…I will argue that crypto hunters are skeptics by their nature.

what? that’s all you can find that i say that’s false in all that wrote? heck, i can find lots more, and i wrote it!

more seriously: a good point. i didn’t mean that ALL cryptos are one thing and ALL scientists are another. i was attempting to make the larger, metaphorical point that there exists a divide between SOME of each that is disheartening. as some folks posted and agreed with my statement, i think it can be said that however poorly i may have worded it, the basic gist was communicated.

that said? i don’t think most crypto hunters are skeptics by nature at all. i don’t know WHAT ‘most crypto hunters’ are by nature, nor, do i suspect, do you or any other human being.

again, it’s kind of a false division, very similar, springheel, to the one you say i make in saying scientists are skeptics vs. cryptos aren’t.

the nature of every one of us is subjective, is my larger point. it’s when we actually begin to attempt to create these largely artificial distinctions that all persons involved become belittled.

i cannot say, therefore, that all of any ‘type’ of human endeavor is one wya or the other; my limited but lifelong experience suggests quite the opposite, that diversity — as it is in biology, religions, and art — is the more salient aspect. again, one fool’s opinion!

i have met many ‘converts’ to cryptozoology who are so adamant that ‘bigfoot is real i don’t care what YOU say!’

others i have met in the crypto field — just as numerous — say to me, ‘you know, there’s a lot of evidence, but i remain skeptical.’

and then again, there are the uber-skeptics who always tell me — and i’ve heard it a lot as well — ‘there is no such thing as bigfoot, it’s all make believe and i can prove it.’

so you know, again, i think the point i was trying to make, however unsuccesfully to some herein, is this: whether you’re skeptical, rejectionist, or believer, you’re still a cryptozoologist at heart if you are fascinated by the subject and spend time studying it, whatever your motives.

after all, why would anyone else bother unless they admit they’re intrigued? even the so-called ‘ultra rationalists’ who reject all evidence to the contrary are mesmerized by ‘proving the falsehood’ of sasquatch (like such a thing could ever be done, as pointed out very eloquently herein by others!).

like the Bard said, horribly paraphrased, ‘i think the skeptic doth protest too much.’

Now you have people who will argue for the existence of BF and Nessie until their dying breath, but that does not necessarily mean that they are not skeptical in nature–doesn’t mean they believe every picture of a wave or shadow or hairy guy in a suit is a cryptid…and it doesn’t mean that they do not look at evidence in an objective manner.

THAT is what I argue against, is the notion that debunkers somehow have a better sense of objectivity and look at the “evidence” with a much more scientific eye. That is not only false but incorrect. Skeptics are those who look at the evidence for such things and then weigh in based on the evidence available–some for the likeliehood and some against.

The error is in ASSuming that those who disbelieve in such notions are merely skeptical and more objective than those who do believe in such possibilities.

Cryptohaus, we have had obvious disagreements in the past, however we never let them become inflamed, nor did we allow them to degrade into name calling or “sanity” questioning retorts.

true enough, but that’s because i admitted i’m crazy from the start!

seriously, my thanks! i agree with what you posted entirely.

CryptoHaus_Press
Just wanted you to know it was read and would surprised if you were ever flamed.

thanks, but… why do i hear the voice of Bugs Bunny as he turns to the camera and slyly sez: “ehhh, he don’t know me very well, do he?”

but truly, thanks, and — welcome! i’m just a poster like you, but i always like it when folks agree with me. doesn’t everyone?

To the press guy, you do know that no one ever thought the world was flat right?

you DO know there are STILL folks who believe the world is flat, right? if there is still a Flat Earth Society (google it if you disbelieve me), then your suggestion “no one ever believed it” is, by default, incorrect, as someone currently believes it to this very day!

Einstein was wrong in most of his theorys, and quantum mechanics is incomplete. No proofs for evolution have ever been found to exist.

wow, i don’t know where to begin with THAT series of statements!

re: Einstein. “was wrong in most of his theorys (sic).” actually, most of his theories were correct, sir. at least as of this writing and outside the pulpit of your local fundamentalist church.

and while it IS true that some quantum mechanics have placed some of his theories in a kind of “relativistic state” (pun intended!), in that they suggest there are exceptions to the rules, most posit still that the theories he espoused are, in fact, pretty sound for our space/time continuum. it’s only when you start dealing with multiversal scenarios Einstein’s theories become, well, antiquated but still fundamentally supposed as valid by most theoritical physicists.

you may be interested in knowing (or know but fail to cite) that Einstein was a strong believer in God. he famously said, “God does not roll the dice” in relationship to his debate with early quantum theorists because Einstein refused to believe his cherished “Unified Field Theory” would never come to be, whether he finished it or not (he did not).

whereas, many quantum theorists couldn’t believe and still don’t that Einstein’s viewpoint held sway, because it did not account for randomnistic elements that their theorems accounted for. again, Einstein used God as a defense of his theories, so this whole idea somehow he was both wrong and an aetheist is ‘fundamentally’ (pun intended) incorrect.

it’s easy to say “he was proven wrong,” but you offer no proof of your assertion, which makes it not only incorrect, but false and therefore demeaning to a lot of folks who’ve lived whole lives dedicated to proving (and successfully so) his theorems.

the ONLY reason we are mapping the universe currently back to the Big Bang (which of course you reject, one presumes, as a Godless concept) is because of the red-shift spectrum theories Einstein dedicated his life to mathematically solving and formulating. visit NASA and read about the Hubble Telescope if you doubt me; the information clearly states the relationship between mapping the cosmos and Einstein’s theories.

if he’s so wrong about them, we’ve sure gained a lot of facts — not theories — but facts from them! far more, i suggest, than we have from the pages of the Bible or Koran in terms of facts rather than beliefs, which are distinct as night and day, imho.

equally, the statement “no proofs for evolution have ever been found to exist” is wrong. or are skeletal remains of extinct species simply grand hoaxes? or rather, the work of God who works in “mysterious ways” when convenient and at odds with known evidence? again, not theories, but facts. Darwin and others can prove with mitochondrial DNA certain facts, such as the make-up of your genetic being; this is not a theory, sir, but a fact.

a theory might be to then extrapolate from the fact and say: ‘we evolved because the DNA record indicates certain parallel probabilities that…’ yadda yadda. again, this is not to say the theory is correct because it is stated, but that it is simply a valid theory based on facts, rather than a religious argument based on a dogmatic belief.

They are insane athiest.

that would be ‘aetheists,’ actually; you not only mispelled it, but forgot to make it plural to match the ‘they’ pronoun useage.

which, you know, if you’re so worried about schools and the influence of aetheists, you MAY want to watch out for ‘mis’-educatin’ our school kids by posting this kind of improper grammar and spelling. after all, as our beloved (by 30% or less of the nation, that is), Baptist president once infamously said in fact, not theory, “The real question is: is our children learning?”

Another athesit group forcing schools to remove open teaching of history is what I see here.

again, that would be not ‘athesit’ (sic) but ‘aetheist.’ you were closer the second time you tried it.

i won’t ask what your ‘open history’ of teaching is; suffice to say, it sounds rather like the new ‘creationist’ museum that opened (i believe it was in Missouri? but i’m not sure; perhaps you can tell me?) recently wherein it shows animatronic dinosaurs and cavemen interacting?

wow. you know, wow. that’s, well, basically theology masquerding as science, and — as far as i can tell, at least, and i’m only one person, mind you — that has nothing to do with cryptozoology. that’s not even pseudo-science; it’s just plain wrong! maybe ‘wrongology’ is a word???

or does one have to be a believer in God (perhaps, even more to the point, YOUR God?) to be a cryptozoologist, as well? it IS an interesting theory, but: isn’t it contradictory? i mean, if the world was made in seven days and there’s no evolution, how do you account for cryptids that are human-like but not human? God doesn’t experiment, after all; he is that he is or rather ‘I am that I am,’ or so we are told in the Bible.

but in finality, i thank you for posting as you did. it proves my point: that there is much false debate where none need exist between those such as yourself who have orthodox religious views and those such as myself who do not. we disagree on religion, but so what? religion has nothing to do with science; they are not mutually exclusive, but rather, not mutually inclusive by default. you may believe that is semantics; i say it’s the difference between Enlightenment and Theocracy.

i am not an ‘aetheist’ but neither do i subscribe to your probable viewpoint as evidenced by your implication (and i note that i am implying as well you implied it!) that Creationism is somehow superior to the “unproven” theory of evolution.

rather, i reitereate: the argument is as false as saying Einstein has been ‘proven’ wrong, that no ‘proofs’ (sic) of evolution have been found, etc. there are many pieces of evidence that evolution is a valid theory, such as fossil evidence, radio carbon dating methodology which show through the process of radioactive decay that such specimens are hundreds of millions of years old, and on and on and on.

the 700 and PTL Club do not believe that, and certainly have done an effective job of sustaining the false debate between religion and science for true gain (by themselves). it does not alter the facts nor theories of science, however, as they are not dependent upon one’s spiritual belief, but upon one’s ability to maintain an open albeit critical mindset.

but i grant you this: there will probably never be a theory that holds as much non-accountability as religious or poliltical dogma. science by nature allows for fallability; religion by nature does not. after all, can one say God makes mistakes? but scientists frequently do and admit it with at least some form of proof on top of it.

dogma is absolute; to question it is heretical and thus damns the skeptical mind to an eternity of hell. so be it.

but you wouldn’t be responding to these thoughts nor reading them on your computer screen if someone hadn’t taken the ‘theories’ of electricity and neural networks and computer science as something other than a surefire way to achieve ‘eternal damnation,’ sir. it’s not the Ol’ Debbil who created the internet; at least, that’s my own theory. i grant you again i cannot back that up with facts.

you can trace the ‘evolution’ of the scientific method without having to be a believer in it; one cannot say the same for religious belief, which requires the follower to either exhibit pre-ordained belief or be excommunicated by his fellow adherents as blasphemous.

that is why the two should remain ’seperate but equal’ branches of our republic, and that is why our Founders did as much; it wasn’t that they were aetheists, far from it in many cases. but neither did they believe it was good for our government and schools to become indoctrinated by one set of beliefs a priori over another.

as science kept an open, critical mindset, it was preferred by the Enlightenment types who founded democracy as we know it. church was for church; science was for science. i have no problems with that, myself.

and thanks again for reading another long-winded text to those who did vs. those who were callin’ upon the Lord to damn me for typing this message! for that alone, i truly do thank God!

Rap

Mr. Radford is rather articulate with pleasant wit. I doubt he can claim not to be a skeptic. Isn’t open-mindedness just as important to scientific methodology as skepticism?

Loren wrote the forward to “Lake Monster Mysteries”.

Did anyone actually read the piece above? …..Mr. Radford
Yup. Other articles too. I found the article about woodpeckers and Bigfoot interesting. Disagree with some of your viewpoints.

i really dislike the divide; maybe some of you who bother to read my long-winded posting will agree…….CryptoHaus_Press
Just wanted you to know it was read and would surprised if you were ever flamed. Nice friendly group here. Opinionated yes.Makes it interesting.