Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Slipspace wrote:

 XvArcanevX wrote:

I’ve stated and alluded to the fact, time and again, that science is limited in its explanatory power due to fundamental epistemological issues. Science can only study phenomenon existing in the natural world through empirical means. There is nothing remotely controversial about that. I really don’t see what is so hard to understand about it. It is a truism the basis for the explanatory power is employed through the application of metaphysical concepts which are presupposed in order for the whole enterprise to unfold exactly as it has.

Anybody with any understanding of science would obviously agree with that limitation. The problem is you haven't done anything to show why this limitation matters in relation to bigfoot. Again, that's because you steadfastly refuse to actually put forward your own point of view. Everyone else seems to have come down on the side of bigfoot not existing and have offered a series of possible explanations. You've mused endlessly on the nature of scientific study while making veiled criticisms of people who put too much "faith" in science while insulating yourself from any counter-criticism by failing to make any definitive statements of your own.

With respect, I have made several allusions suggesting I find the ‘control system’ ideas of Jacques Valle interesting but not exactly definitive. Others have suggested it is anything from hysteria to simple misidentification of known animals. Again I see nothing here indicating I’m being insincere, or that anybody else is being insincere, it’s simply an exploration of views.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I can't speak for Arcane, but there's too much information out there that feels like it's just ignored with regards to the large humanoids. Cryptozoology is basically considered a pseudoscience still.

One interesting theory that is out there with regards to the two most sought-after, the yeti and sasquatch, not really having physical remains found is that they're closer to humans in terms of social & societal structures. Simply put?

They take care of their dead.

And most of our understanding of human history is based on - digging up the dead

No physical remains including waste and bodies is a huge element. Again if there's no credible evidence of the existence of a creature being present then its very hard to then justify that that creature is, therefore, around. Heck many species are studied purely by the presence or absence of waste product rather than the animal itself (because they are highly elusive and avoid humans). We also have trail cameras, motion sensors, thermal, etc... There are a lot of ways to remotely study such areas and see what's around. For a large creature like a Yeti or Bigfoot it should be reasonably easy to at least capture more evidence through remote setups.


The main issue though isn't that there's very little evidence; its that there is basically zero evidence outside of anecdotal. That doesn't make it wrong, but it means that its very very hard to prove and very hard to believe that its potentially true.

Again we have to look at the fact that the increase in our observational methods, cameras and so forth hasn't led to an increase in sightings. In theory if such creatures were around we should see a steady increase of evidence not a reduction.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I can't speak for Arcane, but there's too much information out there that feels like it's just ignored with regards to the large humanoids. Cryptozoology is basically considered a pseudoscience still.

One interesting theory that is out there with regards to the two most sought-after, the yeti and sasquatch, not really having physical remains found is that they're closer to humans in terms of social & societal structures. Simply put?

They take care of their dead.

Which is a lovely bit of conjecture, but is mostly just papering over the tracks with an ad-hoc explanation. One might as well say there’s no evidence of remains because the living eat every last part of the dead.

Burying the dead is I think a uniquely human trait. Other apes do have a kind of funeral rite and demonstrate grief. But that’s not burying the dead.

And if they are doing that? We’d again expect something in the archaeological record. Yet there’s….nowt. At all. No fossils. No complete or fragmentary skeletal remains.

In short, the only evidence we really have are some dodgy videos and after the fact claims by humans.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I can't speak for Arcane, but there's too much information out there that feels like it's just ignored with regards to the large humanoids. Cryptozoology is basically considered a pseudoscience still.

This feels like a good time to roll out a modified version of the Tim Minchin quote from earlier. "You know what they call cryptozoology of identified animals? Zoology." If bigfoot exists, its study lies withint he realms of zoology.

 Kanluwen wrote:

One interesting theory that is out there with regards to the two most sought-after, the yeti and sasquatch, not really having physical remains found is that they're closer to humans in terms of social & societal structures. Simply put?

They take care of their dead.

That seems to make the problem worse, not better. If these animals bury their dead that implies a functioning society of some kind, which would be much, much easier to identify than a small number of solitary animals.

Slipspace wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I can't speak for Arcane, but there's too much information out there that feels like it's just ignored with regards to the large humanoids. Cryptozoology is basically considered a pseudoscience still.

This feels like a good time to roll out a modified version of the Tim Minchin quote from earlier. "You know what they call cryptozoology of identified animals? Zoology." If bigfoot exists, its study lies withint he realms of zoology.

Exactly, which is why the Cryptozoology ends up being left with the really "out there" stuff that has very little to no verifiable proof/evidence. Because anything that does generate interest and then generates actual proof and observations is just real science and real Zoology and no longer crypto.

 XvArcanevX wrote:

With respect, I have made several allusions suggesting I find the ‘control system’ ideas of Jacques Valle interesting but not exactly definitive. Others have suggested it is anything from hysteria to simple misidentification of known animals. Again I see nothing here indicating I’m being insincere, or that anybody else is being insincere, it’s simply an exploration of views.

Which is not a definitive statement about anything. I'd also point out that you didn't really say anything at all about the control systems idea other than to bring it up in a very vague and nebulous fashion. That's hardly putting forward your own theories or ideas. You've been asked several times to expand on what your problems are with science with regard to bigfoot and have basically not done so in any positive fashion, which leads to a complete stagnation of debate because there's no substance to actually talk about.

Note that Kanluwen put forward an actual theory seeking to explain some of the reasons we don't have better proof for bigfoot's existence and it immediately led to further discussion and debate.

Ehhhhhh kinda.

Cryptozoology is kind of straddling the line. There are cranks. Many, many cranks. No dispute there. But there are suitably qualified persons doing it at least as a hobby. Not to prove or disprove specifically, but to see where the evidence takes them.

As mentioned before, there are genuine species which were once considered Cryptids. Creatures reported and believed myth, only to be discovered and described.

Usual caveat that just because A, B and C are proven to exist, it doesn’t mean cryprids D through Z are therefore also real and just really really unbelievably, “Richard III has nowt on us” good at hide and seek.

 XvArcanevX wrote:

I’ve stated and alluded to the fact, time and again, that science is limited in its explanatory power due to fundamental epistemological issues. Science can only study phenomenon existing in the natural world through empirical means. There is nothing remotely controversial about that. I really don’t see what is so hard to understand about it. It is a truism the basis for the explanatory power is employed through the application of metaphysical concepts which are presupposed in order for the whole enterprise to unfold exactly as it has.

And yet science also has Dark Matter - something that it can't directly observe, but that we know is there through proxy information in other areas. It's outside of our field of easy observation right now, but we know its there because it leaves its mark on reality as we observe it currently. So we give it a name and we study around it with what we can.

What you're saying is that if there is something out there that leaves no trace on any human sense, no trace on the world that we can observe (even by proxy) and that cannot be studied in any form - then it must exist because one very rare time it did leave a blurry photo?



Again Bigfoot has to be observable unless its a creature beyond any human understanding of the natural world. That isn't impossible, but unless there's proof of it being a thing and unless there's proof of it at east by proxy; then we can't really do anything about it. You can't argue for nor against it because its not a thing to us. There has to BE something otherwise you're just making it up.
And there have been things - sightings blurry photos and so forth. However those have not increased over time comparably with technological advances; nor with increased observation and awareness in the active areas. Again we didn't see more evidence arise we saw less. Furthermore it is possible to provide multiple theories which explain in rational terms, what those earlier observations might well have been which fit with what we have already observed within reality.

Slipspace wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I can't speak for Arcane, but there's too much information out there that feels like it's just ignored with regards to the large humanoids. Cryptozoology is basically considered a pseudoscience still.

This feels like a good time to roll out a modified version of the Tim Minchin quote from earlier. "You know what they call cryptozoology of identified animals? Zoology." If bigfoot exists, its study lies withint he realms of zoology.

Sure, and there are zoologists who treat these unidentified humanoids seriously.

 Kanluwen wrote:

One interesting theory that is out there with regards to the two most sought-after, the yeti and sasquatch, not really having physical remains found is that they're closer to humans in terms of social & societal structures. Simply put?

They take care of their dead.

That seems to make the problem worse, not better. If these animals bury their dead that implies a functioning society of some kind, which would be much, much easier to identify than a small number of solitary animals.

And yet we've (relatively) recently found tribes in the Amazon who were previously uncontacted by the modern world.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Ehhhhhh kinda.

Cryptozoology is kind of straddling the line. There are cranks. Many, many cranks. No dispute there. But there are suitably qualified persons doing it at least as a hobby. Not to prove or disprove specifically, but to see where the evidence takes them.

As mentioned before, there are genuine species which were once considered Cryptids. Creatures reported and believed myth, only to be discovered and described.

Usual caveat that just because A, B and C are proven to exist, it doesn’t mean cryprids D through Z are therefore also real and just really really unbelievably, “Richard III has nowt on us” good at hide and seek.

That kind of us the point I was making. Cyrptid gets left with the wild stuff; now sometimes that does prove fruitful or the study within the area turns something else up that wasn't observed. However at that point it leaves cryptid and just becomes regular science.

It doesn't help that Cryptid also has a lot of crackpots within it which devalues it as a term. So chances are many who are studying such elements just call themselves zoologists studying the potential of X creature existing within a region or such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I can't speak for Arcane, but there's too much information out there that feels like it's just ignored with regards to the large humanoids. Cryptozoology is basically considered a pseudoscience still.

This feels like a good time to roll out a modified version of the Tim Minchin quote from earlier. "You know what they call cryptozoology of identified animals? Zoology." If bigfoot exists, its study lies withint he realms of zoology.

Sure, and there are zoologists who treat these unidentified humanoids seriously.

 Kanluwen wrote:

One interesting theory that is out there with regards to the two most sought-after, the yeti and sasquatch, not really having physical remains found is that they're closer to humans in terms of social & societal structures. Simply put?

They take care of their dead.

That seems to make the problem worse, not better. If these animals bury their dead that implies a functioning society of some kind, which would be much, much easier to identify than a small number of solitary animals.

And yet we've (relatively) recently found tribes in the Amazon who were previously uncontacted by the modern world.

That defends the point though. There were tribes and they were found through further study. They left evidence which led to study and observation and thus proof.

The tribes weren't found via study.

They were found by aggressive encroachment and deforestation.

Worth noting that locals had insisted the groups were there, but they were decried as local legends or groups who chose to regress ala the Amish.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The tribes weren't found via study.

They were found by aggressive encroachment and deforestation.

Worth noting that locals had insisted the groups were there, but they were decried as local legends or groups who chose to regress ala the Amish.

Ahh well if not study in the sense of academic, then at least study in terms of the habited area being observed and operated in more and more through encroachment. Even if it wasn't the intention of the encroachment and deforestation.

But this all just defends the point that a population of something will leave evidence and can be observed when more observations are made within an area. Be that remote trail cameras; trap cameras; traps; deforestation; tourists with cameras or whatever.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And yet we've (relatively) recently found tribes in the Amazon who were previously uncontacted by the modern world.

Bigfoot sightings have generally been in places close(ish) to human habitation. Sure, it's not like there are multiple sightings on the outskirts of cities, but we're not talking about some of the remotest places on Earth either. Given the sightings close to where humans live and travel to, it's still extremely unlikely there's some kind of functioning society of non-humans we've yet to discover in the wilderness of central USA.

If you'd have said to me there are undiscovered tribes in the Amazon, or living on some Pacific islands somewhere, I'd likely have thought it plausible. But that's because we know humans definitely exist, we know there are already tribes of people living in those sort of locations and we haven't fully explored those areas (often out of respect for exactly these sort of tribes). Only the last of those is something we could possibly say of bigfoot, but even then it seems a stretch.

 Overread wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
The tribes weren't found via study.

They were found by aggressive encroachment and deforestation.

Worth noting that locals had insisted the groups were there, but they were decried as local legends or groups who chose to regress ala the Amish.

Ahh well if not study in the sense of academic, then at least study in terms of the habited area being observed and operated in more and more through encroachment. Even if it wasn't the intention of the encroachment and deforestation.

But this all just defends the point that a population of something will leave evidence and can be observed when more observations are made within an area. Be that remote trail cameras; trap cameras; traps; deforestation; tourists with cameras or whatever.

Do you understand exactly how large some of the areas where Sasquatch/Bigfoot sightings are? How unpopulated they are?

Even with remote trail cameras, there's a lot of area to cover. And that's just talking the Pacific Northwest, not going into things like the Canadian sightings or Alaska.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And yet we've (relatively) recently found tribes in the Amazon who were previously uncontacted by the modern world.

Bigfoot sightings have generally been in places close(ish) to human habitation. Sure, it's not like there are multiple sightings on the outskirts of cities, but we're not talking about some of the remotest places on Earth either. Given the sightings close to where humans live and travel to, it's still extremely unlikely there's some kind of functioning society of non-humans we've yet to discover in the wilderness of central USA.

The Pacific Northwest isn't "central USA". Even with that said, there's huge chunks of the US where you can drive for hours and see no real civilization.

If you'd have said to me there are undiscovered tribes in the Amazon, or living on some Pacific islands somewhere, I'd likely have thought it plausible. But that's because we know humans definitely exist, we know there are already tribes of people living in those sort of locations and we haven't fully explored those areas (often out of respect for exactly these sort of tribes). Only the last of those is something we could possibly say of bigfoot, but even then it seems a stretch.

But there's the reason why it's a bit daft to suggest that the scientific method works in this regards:
-We haven't fully explored those areas, often out of respect for exactly these sort of tribes
-Said tribes have folklore and first-hand accounts about exactly these things, which are discounted as superstition and folklore by academics...tribes cease sharing those accounts or evidence.

Slipspace wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And yet we've (relatively) recently found tribes in the Amazon who were previously uncontacted by the modern world.

Bigfoot sightings have generally been in places close(ish) to human habitation. Sure, it's not like there are multiple sightings on the outskirts of cities, but we're not talking about some of the remotest places on Earth either. Given the sightings close to where humans live and travel to, it's still extremely unlikely there's some kind of functioning society of non-humans we've yet to discover in the wilderness of central USA.

If you'd have said to me there are undiscovered tribes in the Amazon, or living on some Pacific islands somewhere, I'd likely have thought it plausible. But that's because we know humans definitely exist, we know there are already tribes of people living in those sort of locations and we haven't fully explored those areas (often out of respect for exactly these sort of tribes). Only the last of those is something we could possibly say of bigfoot, but even then it seems a stretch.

To be fair, the Pacific Northwest has huge tracts of wilderness that are mostly impassable for any but the most dedicated adventurer. There’s plenty of room for unknown species to live and die there.

It’s possible that a population of large hominids exist out there and have been spotted on occasion, and once Bigfoot entered popular consciousness we would expect the bulk of sightings to be misidentifications by people who saw their first bear or whatever in more heavily trafficked areas.

I dunno. It seems pretty unlikely that there is some undiscovered large animal hiding in the wilderness of a country where it is basically a national pastime to head out into the wilderness to shoot large animals...

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And yet we've (relatively) recently found tribes in the Amazon who were previously uncontacted by the modern world.

Bigfoot sightings have generally been in places close(ish) to human habitation. Sure, it's not like there are multiple sightings on the outskirts of cities, but we're not talking about some of the remotest places on Earth either. Given the sightings close to where humans live and travel to, it's still extremely unlikely there's some kind of functioning society of non-humans we've yet to discover in the wilderness of central USA.

The Pacific Northwest isn't "central USA". Even with that said, there's huge chunks of the US where you can drive for hours and see no real civilization.

Fair enough regarding the location - my bad. The fact remains, however, that positing some kind of functioning society as the reason we haven't found bigfoot remains doesn't make sense. You've just increased the likelihood of finding bigfoot in that case.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

If you'd have said to me there are undiscovered tribes in the Amazon, or living on some Pacific islands somewhere, I'd likely have thought it plausible. But that's because we know humans definitely exist, we know there are already tribes of people living in those sort of locations and we haven't fully explored those areas (often out of respect for exactly these sort of tribes). Only the last of those is something we could possibly say of bigfoot, but even then it seems a stretch.

But there's the reason why it's a bit daft to suggest that the scientific method works in this regards:
-We haven't fully explored those areas, often out of respect for exactly these sort of tribes
-Said tribes have folklore and first-hand accounts about exactly these things, which are discounted as superstition and folklore by academics...tribes cease sharing those accounts or evidence.

The scientific method works based on evidence. If evidence exists it can be investigated by scientific means, but it can't create that evidence on its own. The lack of good evidence that we can actually investigate is exactly why I remain extremely sceptical about the existence of bigfoot. The time to believe in something is when there is sufficient evidence to do so and we just don't have that yet. Doesn't mean we won't, but the longer we go without discovering these creatures the less likely it seems that they exist at all.

There's a reason why witness testimony is usually considered the weakest kind of evidence for something. It's very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any single account is accurate. Even if we can be fairly sure the witness isn't flat-out lying or under the influence of drugs or some mental impairment, we know human memory is extremely unreliable and prone to manipulation. How do we know this? We tested it. Using science. Then you add in that folklore and superstition are often self-reinforcing phenomena. If there's already a superstition or tradition that there's large hairy man-like creatures in the mountains, then you end up with all sorts of things misattributed to this creature that otherwise would not be. Taking all that into account, it should be obvious why we need more than just these testimonies to draw good conclusions.

There was a point brought up a few pages back about witness testimony for UFO sightings and abductions. The poster mentioned the idea that a lot of testimony may go unrecorded because there is social pressure not to mention these sort of experiences for fear of being branded a crackpot or weirdo. I think that's quite a plausible theory and you could reasonably conclude we're missing out on a lot of potential testimony because of it. Even if the theory is true, it doesn't tell you anything about the validity of the claims.

Also with Bigfoot? Any evidence presented has been analysed. Tufts of unrecognised fur from not that long ago was examined, and determined to be from a Pizzly Bear, a rare but not unknown Polar Bear/Grizzly Bear hybrid.

Folk have been caught out or admitted faking tracks. The infamous film just happened to be made by men seeking funding for a Bigfoot documentary, who just happened to not only see Bigfoot, but standing out in the open, with enough time to setup their camera, and get quite pleasing framing, on quite possibly uneven ground, and the “shy and retiring” Bigfoot which “normally avoids human contact” didn’t just leg it into cover. Or show any distress or concern.

The thing about positing fakery off of "shows no fear of humans" is that it ignores the wild animals that just don't have the interactions with humans to make them fearful.

Expedition X just aired their episode on the phenomenon of British big cats. A railway worker had a fairly disturbing encounter with what he claimed was a big cat, made all the more disturbing by his colleagues having said that they noticed it stalking him before he ever noticed it.

Right, but if that’s an Alien Big Cat? We can’t rule out it hasn’t had some interaction with humans, certainly if it’s an escaped zoo or circus animal. Also, Cats are predatory creatures, which are proven to tackle dodgy prey when hungry enough. So the behaviour described isn’t unusual enough to compare.

This Bigfoot footage? The guys were trying to raise funds for a Bigfoot documentary. In that area. And “whoopsadoodle would you look at that we gosh darned just caught the big sod on film what are the chances of that happening, eh?”

This opens up serious and legitimate skepticism as to their motivations. I’m fairly sure they even had a costume for their documentary already. And the subject shows no concern or curiosity whatsoever. No fear, no aggression, no curiosity is a very, very odd reaction from a wild animal or hominid.

In short? They absolutely had the means and motivation to fake it. Whilst not conclusive, given the complete lack of any other evidence, it’s far more likely to be a hoax.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Consider what we know of other Great Apes.

Gorillas are super curious, and will come poke and prod a human, provided you don’t show signs of challenge, like staring. But if you sit down, head down? They’ll come suss you out with a minimised risk of them giving you a good shoeing.

But this Bigfoot apparently doesn’t know what we are, and didn’t care. That’s a very unusual reaction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, on the “maybe they bury their dead”?

The footage shows a single creature. As that’s the best evidence, to conclude they’re social animals seems a stretch, and is just adding whataboutism purely to explain a lack of further evidence. Especially as it’s been interpreted as a female. If we look to all other hominids and Great Apes? The females tend to be social, as it’s beneficial to successful child rearing. Even nominally solitary female Orangutans will share territory with other females and their offspring. So to find one entirely alone would seem to be somewhat unusual.

It is an interesting thought, but a step too far into wild speculation/gap filling for my tastes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here’s a semi-relevant video, regarding the discovery and scientific description of the extinct Gigantopithicus, the largest Ape species that we know of.

Warning, some swearing from our presenter. And her style might not be for everyone. But she is factual.

I don't know what footage you're specifically referring to. I don't much care either, because there's definitely a lot of fakery out there.

What I'm telling you is that there's been enough folklore and fairly credible eyewitness accounts dating back hundreds of years surrounding these things in the Americas and Himalayas to make me firmly be in the "I'd be flabberghasted if there wasn't something to it" camp.

You bring up the point about 'social behaviors' for hominids, and like I said earlier about how certain accounts either just aren't reported/published or are flatout ignored by more "serious academics"? That's actually a touchstone for a large number of accounts surrounding Sasquatch from the various tribes in the Pacific Northwest, Canada, and Alaska.

LONG before the Patterson Film made Bigfoot go "mainstream" and before Jane Goodall's work with various primates, there were accounts of Sasquatches as family units. That they were social to a point with the tribes that they shared the region with, and that some could even speak the various languages of the tribes that they interacted with. A hallmark of current, more credible sightings/accounts is that there's a lot of "clicking and whistling" involved.


As an interesting note?
The term "Sasquatch" is believed to be an anglicized version of the term "sasq'ets"(roughly: "hairy man") from British Colombian tribal languages. Their descriptions were not of massive, 14 foot hairy individuals but rather more human sized.

It wasn't until the 1950s onward in the Pacific Northwest of the US that the whole "Bigfoot" thing started to exist, after prints(revealed much later to have been faked) were found at a logging site and the workers started referring to the culprit as "Bigfoot"...and that's how we come full circle to where existing folklore of hairy humanoids that had been reported as early (or late, depending upon how you choose to look at it!) as the Spanish missionaries on the West Coast morphing into this idea of "Bigfoot".

If they were just hairy men then it could just have been a family with a form of hypertrichosis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrichosis

Ergo fully human just in hiding likely due to stigma.





As for big cats, that myth in the UK has yet to actually bare fruit of finding a large carnivore let alone a breeding population capable of sustaining itself over multiple generations. Plus, again, we lack evidence of their passing.

The wild boar in the UK that many people never see are known about because they leave evidence.


Many cryptids fall apart because there is just no evidence of their being around. We get the human eye witness sightings, but beyond that tracks, trails, kills, territorial markings, scat, bones, etc... We don't find anything.
At the very best a few, like big cat sightings, could indeed be singular individuals that escaped collections and the escape was not reported.

This is where science says that there's a very strong change that eye witness accounts are unreliable due to lack of alternative supporting evidence.



Also lets not forget a lot of sightings often happen at dawn/dusk/night. Now whilst a lot of wildlife is more active at those hours; we are also pretty rubbish at low light vision. On the whole human eyesight isn't made for the night time.

Here we go.




A skeptic investigates the claim that Bigfoot features in many Native American tales. Turns out….kinda? But also no.

Oh wow, a skeptic found something that validated their beliefs! I'm shocked!

Again: you seem to not grasp just how vast of an area we're talking about. Even just the Pacific Northwest into Canada and up into Alaska(IE: where the legends & folklore were more widespread) is a ridiculously large area.

Why not try….reviewing the evidence presented, rather than dismissing it out of hand?

Here’s a taster. Many of the stories claimed to relate to Bigfoot in Kathy Strain’s “Giants, Cannibals & Monsters” categorically do not come anywhere close to describing a Bigfoot.

The content creator has also communicated with the Native American tribe to whom the legend of Sasquatch specifically belongs…who say it’s a spiritual being, not an an actual creature.

Which goes a pretty decent way to counter your claim of Native American tales, no?

 XvArcanevX wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Scientism isn’t a thing. Because it’s not a faith position

Yet you have faith its methods will produce intelligible results? And yes, no matter where pages upon pages upon pages upon pages of back and forth go, that will remain and always has been what is colloquially called a ‘mic drop’

No. There is no "faith" in the scientific method and thus science. The scientific method is a process. A list of instructions. And those instructions produce the best possible outcome to answer questions logically by assessing evidence and experimentation. It is also self correcting when new evidence presents itself. There is no faith in science. There is the results of science.

This is well known, well understood and entirely logical. You EXPECT the methods used in the method to be repeatable and verifiable do you not? How is this so if only that which can be empirically verified through sense data is worthy of any consideration?

No, scientism is most certainly a thing. It is a religious position based on FAITH in the scientific method to provide a coherent worldview that can explain all things. I congratulate those who hold that faith position for all it has done and will continue to do for our kind while acknowledging the places it falls short of adequate explanatory power and seek more compelling and logical arguments (as I encourage other to do also… wherever and whatever that takes)

No. There is no "faith" in the scientific method and thus science. The scientific method is a process. A list of instructions. And those instructions produce the best possible outcome to answer questions logically by assessing evidence and experimentation. It is also self correcting when new evidence presents itself. There is no faith in science. There is the results of science.

People don't have "faith" that the results will be repeatable and verifiable. They are tested to see if they are repeatable. They are submitted for peer review to be verified. When you hit the power button on your device to have this conversation it works because we learned how to send those electrical signals into that circuit through repeatable, verifiable, experimentation and advancement.

Scientism is a word used to try and even the playing field between faith and science by bringing science down to faiths low level of not requiring any evidence at all. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.

Things that exist leave evidence of their existence. Now... we might not have or lack the tools to detect that evidence. Sure.

But let's consider Reiki and other "spirit healing". The common arugement being we lack the tools to detect and understand whats going on with it. Sure... But here is what we can do. We can measure physical trauma. If someones spine if damaged we can SEE that. We can see exactly how and how much. We can measure it. And if Reiki was real we could put 1000 reiki masters in a lab with 10 test subjects each and we can measure the trauma pre reiki treatment and measure it after to see the EFFECT of this supposed energy we cannot detect.

And yet... not once, not ever, have we been able to measure a single physical impact of any of that. The evidence suggest reiki is a grift.

If Cryptids are out there they leave evidence. Because things that exist leave evidence of their existence. Until we have some actual evidence it isn't any more worth considering than unicorns and dragons.

So, this thread has devolved into the usual sauce with this sort of thing, and is dipping close into crack-pottery.

Therefore, let's change the perspective on this thread a bit to make it something useable? Let's talk a bit more about how Bigfoot fits into the "culture". For example, in my rural, very conservative, mountainous area; Bigfoot representations are very common. As far as I know, there have been no popular bigfoot sighting in this area yet his image and legend is all over the place.

Perhaps, Bigfoot is now a totem for a certain type of cultural preference? A more rural, counter-culture that rejects "modern" thinking and prefers a certain romantic "back-to-nature" naturism or even a more self-sufficient outlook? Therefore, Bigfoot is now an extension of the post-modern Culture War rather than an actual thing to be discovered.

I wonder if UFOs and Fairy abductions also fall into these "Romantic" reactions to Modern culture? Pretty sure this is not a unique take, so does anyone know any good Folklorists/Anthropologists who have researched the topic?

Cryptids are just…fun. At least I think so.

Whilst I’ll always remain a Willing Disbeliever, I’d be more than happy to do a tour of such museums and attractions, because the Story is probably more compelling than the truth.

Those attractions cause zero harm, and aren’t really bothering anyone. And they may be a surprising lynchpin of local economies. After all, a visit would likely involve somewhere to stay, something to eat and drink, fuel for your car, car snacks, and of course some kind of souvenir or three. All in an area I might otherwise have few if any compelling reasons to stop in.

One can look to Orkney as a similar thing, thanks to its ridiculous amount of Neolithic sites. Maes Howe might be on the arse end of nowhere, and the visitors centre somewhat basic. But visitors also frequent the ice cream shop and cafe, and so the local economy is supported by tourism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On UFO and Fairy stuff, I shared a link a few posts back you may find interesting.

Oh yeah, I love Cryptids as much or more than the next guy. I am like you Doc, it is more fun to indulge, just like I love folklore, myths, tall tales, legends, and the like.

That said, the popularity of such things probably goes beyond simple commercialization. I would argue there must also be something culturally significant to them for their popularity to persist.

We’re humans. We love a good story. And being the sole species we know of to have complex language, something utterly unique to our species. Same with art.

Using stories to set out fables and moral lessons is a useful way of imparting wisdom to the young. You can tell a kid “don’t walk away from the fire in the dark” is simply less compelling than detailing, and even inventing, a why to that bit of wisdom. All that matters is that kiddo stays put, and hopefully you didn’t over do it and the little sod will still get to sleep.

Add in that written language is relatively modern, let alone widespread literacy which is ridiculously modern? And stories are how we learned and taught each other for millennia.

What is the media we all consume if not very fancy story telling? So compelling we’ll gladly collectively cough up billions every year to have a chance to see and hear someone’s tale.

Think I’m gonna go read up (no, not research, I’m not going anywhere near that deep!) on the origin of stories and fairy tales, because it’s absolutely something I want to know.