The Catch-22 question, at least for me.
(This is from a skeptical perspective)
My concern has to do with the frustrating and hair-pulling remark “Yeah, but is it possible?” Used in discussions of cryptids that we have no specimen or any scientifically sound evidence for.
--Why should I follow the reasoning that “possibilities”, concerning description/habits/characteristics/lack of evidence/etc., of undocumented creatures, warrant my attention and consideration just because science can’t or hasn’t proven them?
--What makes one possibility carry more weight or deserve consideration from the skeptical community than another possibility when discussing a creature we have no evidence for?”
--What weight do/should possibilities carry when discussing something undocumented?
--Does the argument “Isn’t it possible?” always win out with a “Yes”? Because it so happens to be something you can not prove with a concrete formula or scientifically sound evidence.
--Must I conclude: “Yeah, it is possible, but ___________ is why I do not think it is probable, but yeah it is possible.” And how much of the previous statement do proponents of cryptids hear?
-- If you’ve understood me this far, where does “No, it’s a myth" come in? From the skeptical viewpoint and the proponents’ viewpoint and the scientific viewpoint?
--Despite that science will not say “It is not possible for x cryptid to exist.” I still don’t see “Isn’t it possible?” as carrying any weight in cryptid discussions when we have nothing to go on.
--Am I wrong to demand more than possibilities to reach the conclusion that my belief ‘bigfoot is a myth’ is wrong?
If my concern makes sense to anyone other than me, I appreciate replies from anyone who is willing to help me sort this out.
Edited by QuiteContrary, 04 December 2012 - 04:54 AM.