to those of us who see it from this side of the pond, it isn’t so amazing that the evidence is being largely ignored.

It has to do with Americans’ ignorance about things like science, evidence and logic, and with general fear of being the nail that sticks up to get hammered down, and with the scientific community’s fear of endangering pet views of the world, to say nothing of the careers and grant money that go with staying in one’s comfort zone - and may go away if you’re too bold about going outside that zone.

Incredibly frustrating, oh yeah. But very unfortunately understandable.

And of course this is my main problem with scofftics. While contributing nothing to the discussion, the escalate the wall of noise with which those truly searching for the truth must deal.

Meldrum’s as brave as Columbus. At least intellectually, he is.

Some folks don’t like arguing with a brick wall. I consider it practice!
But that link above is sort of my last word on scofftics. From now on, I’m only doing discourse with people whose minds are open.

1. Re: the attitude proponents take toward scofftics. It may be something about where you come from. I’ve never seen cryptids as a paranormal thing, but always as a straight zoological thing. I know that many sas proponents came to the field through an interest in the paranormal. Maybe that feeling that you’re on shaky ground, where you’re really not, fosters the greater slack proponents tend to cut scofftics. Or maybe the feeling that, well, the public isn’t with me on this issue (even though the public, well, isn’t well informed, period, on topics scientific). I’ve always been most interested not in the “mystery” aspects of the sas, but in the biological aspects. It seems an extremely plausible animal to me, and I can see right through the canned “arguments against.” So I tend to lose patience with scofftics. They use science as a banner and a weapon. But they tend not to be well versed in it. They don’t view it as a process worked by people who tend to be imperfect (and more than a bit rigid in their thinking, generally); they view it as a sort of New Religion. They wave it like a priest does incense.

2. I haven’t read Meldrum’s book yet. But I’ve read one of his technical papers; and he seems to have the required ammo. Then, however, he runs into the scofftic wall of noise I spoke of above, and that’s what he’s been struggling with. Hopefully people, just reading the book and hearing him talk, will start to turn that around. (When I say that scofftics do quite the opposite of helping the field, Meldrum and what he’s contending with is precisely what I have in mind.)

3. There’s no need to burn scofftics at the stake. Just note that, like most pots calling kettles black, they never change their argument and never supply the evidence. And with the crazy theses they put forward, they sure as hell are deficient in the evidence department.

You can interpret that as nice, nasty, or whatever. It is the way it will be here.

Another difference between skeptics like you and scofftics is…well, you have experience dealing with what legitimate scientists see as legitimate biological puzzles. And living in Japan - a country that’s considered by many in the West to be a termite nest of people, but you see it differently - has been, I’m sure, one of many things that help you keep an open mind about cryptids.

In other words, you have the background to engage in intellectual debate on this topic.

Scofftics, I’ve observed….well, as I said to one once: we need a primatologist on this case, not a shrink.

But some people here are TOO nice to people who hold divergent views.

Let me explain.

Silvereagle, for one example, is a smart guy who has opinions that differ with those of many of us here. He’s also an entertaining poster, by which I mean smart and witty, not flaky. The problem many of us have with his views is that they’re not - at least at present - subject to scientific confirmation. (And for whatever reason, independent personal confirmation hasn’t come to us yet.) The discussion pretty much has to end there; but people clearly say what they think and are respectful about it. (And humorous, as required.) It’s clear: we have to agree to disagree.

I see something subtly but distinctly different when scofftics visit this board. I notice that many cryptos act defensive and even a bit obsequious around scofftics. (OK, m_m, I like it too. :-D) It’s as if the scofftic is actually scoring some debate points, which I somehow don’t see. Now some posters here do get after it when the pseudos come to call; but I don’t hear it ever stated nearly as well - by nearly as many - on this board as it is stated by those debating with silvereagle. And I wonder why.

Is it that we consider ourselves somehow intellectually superior to folks who believe paranormal phenomena, but somehow inferior to scofftics?

Remember this: The paranormalist at least seems to be experiencing something. The scofftic seems to be doing nothing but saying: nope, you didn’t experience that, and I’m smart enough to know that. Even if you aren’t.

Are we getting into new-thread territory here?