25 replies to this topic

[orangepeaceful79]

SkeptcByMindBelievrByHeart, on 17 January 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Gorillas, Okapi, Giant Panda, Giraffe, Takin, Python, Giant Squid, Komodo Dragon, Beaked Whale, Tiger, were some of the animals that were once regarded as myths..

All of which turned out to be real animals and were vetted by science using actual real physical evidence - which consequently was left behind by these animals because that is what real animals do - leave behind evidence.  They breed, leave corpses, poop, participate in the food chain....etc....

SkeptcByMindBelievrByHeart, on 17 January 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Not only these, but there are myths in the making even today. for example, big foot.. huge eagles, hobbit type creature, vampire type beasts, new jearsey devil, mothman, lizard monster. It will not be long, when tthese creatures be found as a existing creature or a newly discovered creature..

.........which none of these animals do.  They don't do the things that ALL other animals do because they do not exist.  They would have been found by now, because if they were real, actually existing animals they would have been doing all the things that real animals do for the past millenia that they have been around.  They didn't, haven't, and won't - because they are fake.  They are misidentifications, hoaxes, and embellishments.  

Real animals make evidence.  Pure and simple.

[SkeptcByMindBelievrByHeart]

tell me orangepeaceful78, why do people of today go chasing a myth, after all it is a myth.
For example bigfoot.. For centuries native americans shared stories to one and other, and to the spainish then to the british of a huge hairy man ape, living in the mountains and forests. Invader, conquerors, and settlers tried to capture the elusive beast. Even today there are no hard evidence of its exisitance. But still that does not let people give up on finding the beast. Seeing, photos, foot prints, claw marks, hair, do not mean a thing in the science world. There needs to be hard evidence to back up a claim. But maybe they do exist.

This was the same,centuries ago for gorillas, tigers, Giraffe and so on. Obviously local people knew that they exists, but was totally mythical to outsiders.

[orangepeaceful79]

SkeptcByMindBelievrByHeart, on 18 January 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

tell me orangepeaceful78, why do people of today go chasing a myth, after all it is a myth.
For example bigfoot.. For centuries native americans shared stories to one and other, and to the spainish then to the british of a huge hairy man ape, living in the mountains and forests. Invader, conquerors, and settlers tried to capture the elusive beast. Even today there are no hard evidence of its exisitance. But still that does not let people give up on finding the beast. Seeing, photos, foot prints, claw marks, hair, do not mean a thing in the science world. There needs to be hard evidence to back up a claim. But maybe they do exist.

This was the same,centuries ago for gorillas, tigers, Giraffe and so on. Obviously local people knew that they exists, but was totally mythical to outsiders.

I used to be a believer in these things actually - Cryptozoology was a huge obsession for me when I was a teenager.  I actually followed my interest in Cryptozoology and the Paranormal to this very website where I had an abrupt awakening concerning what constitutes evidence and what doesn't.  Since then I have been a skeptic.  Will I say that all these creatures are categorically impossible?  Some of them, yes.  Others, like Bigfoot, Nessie, etc...I  have resigned to the "extremely unlikely based on no evidence" bin.  

Why do I think that people keep chasing them?  For a variety of reasons really.  I think a lot of people don't understand what constitutes evidence by which an animal can be scientifically vetted.  So they go by whatever they read on the internet - most of which information is unverifiable.

I think the other key component of why people believe is because they WANT to.  An unfortunate trait of our humanity is that we have a tendency to seek out information that supports what we already believe rather than seek out information by which we determine our beliefs. This confirmation bias http://en.wikipedia....ion_bias  keeps many from seeing how flimsy the "evidence" trotted out by the Crypto community really is.  

Add to this the phenomenon of pareidolia (seeing what we expect to see, or seeing based on our hopes, fears, or beliefs - another unfortunate by-product of the way our minds work) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paredolia and you have the perfect recipe for chasing all sorts of things for which there is no actual justification in reality.  

I think that people also gravitate toward these topics because they are admittedly fun - its what keeps me coming back, even though my beliefs have changed based on a more empirical mindset.  

Ultimately its up to the individual to shape their own beliefs and opinions as they see fit.  Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but never their own facts.  And the facts, at least to date, do not support Bigfoot or any of the other cryptids we discuss regularly.  Will that change?  Maybe so.  However as time goes by, I see it as less and less likely, especially given the incredible amount of technology that is being brought to bear to find these creatures nowadays and still we have nothing.  

Cheers!

[Clobhair-cean]

SkeptcByMindBelievrByHeart, on 18 January 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

tell me orangepeaceful78, why do people of today go chasing a myth, after all it is a myth.
For example bigfoot.. For centuries native americans shared stories to one and other, and to the spainish then to the british of a huge hairy man ape, living in the mountains and forests. Invader, conquerors, and settlers tried to capture the elusive beast. Even today there are no hard evidence of its exisitance. But still that does not let people give up on finding the beast. Seeing, photos, foot prints, claw marks, hair, do not mean a thing in the science world. There needs to be hard evidence to back up a claim. But maybe they do exist.

This was the same,centuries ago for gorillas, tigers, Giraffe and so on. Obviously local people knew that they exists, but was totally mythical to outsiders.

Firstly, the Native Americans most definitely did not tell stories about "huge hairy man apes", mostly because they had no concept of "ape". What they had were a number of different "wild man" legends, most of which seem to be spirits, boogeymen and other nonbiological entities.

There is one huge difference between gorillas and bigfoot: (not giraffes and tigers, which were never considered to be mythical) the westerners disbelief was very short-lived. Once scientists started looking for them, they were quickly found, because they are real animals that can be found. You can't find a single other creature in the history of natural sciences that managed to elude all the people looking for it for over a hundred years, especially not megafauna and even more especially not in a well-documented, highly modernised and densely populated part of the world as North America.

[SkeptcByMindBelievrByHeart]

orangepeaceful79, on 18 January 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

I used to be a believer in these things actually - Cryptozoology was a huge obsession for me when I was a teenager.  I actually followed my interest in Cryptozoology and the Paranormal to this very website where I had an abrupt awakening concerning what constitutes evidence and what doesn't.  Since then I have been a skeptic.  Will I say that all these creatures are categorically impossible?  Some of them, yes.  Others, like Bigfoot, Nessie, etc...I  have resigned to the "extremely unlikely based on no evidence" bin.  

Why do I think that people keep chasing them?  For a variety of reasons really.  I think a lot of people don't understand what constitutes evidence by which an animal can be scientifically vetted.  So they go by whatever they read on the internet - most of which information is unverifiable.

I think the other key component of why people believe is because they WANT to.  An unfortunate trait of our humanity is that we have a tendency to seek out information that supports what we already believe rather than seek out information by which we determine our beliefs. This confirmation bias http://en.wikipedia....ion_bias  keeps many from seeing how flimsy the "evidence" trotted out by the Crypto community really is.  

Add to this the phenomenon of pareidolia (seeing what we expect to see, or seeing based on our hopes, fears, or beliefs - another unfortunate by-product of the way our minds work) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paredolia and you have the perfect recipe for chasing all sorts of things for which there is no actual justification in reality.  

I think that people also gravitate toward these topics because they are admittedly fun - its what keeps me coming back, even though my beliefs have changed based on a more empirical mindset.  

Ultimately its up to the individual to shape their own beliefs and opinions as they see fit.  Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but never their own facts.  And the facts, at least to date, do not support Bigfoot or any of the other cryptids we discuss regularly.  Will that change?  Maybe so.  However as time goes by, I see it as less and less likely, especially given the incredible amount of technology that is being brought to bear to find these creatures nowadays and still we have nothing.  

Cheers!

Very plausible , orangepreacher76, but do you think people from ancient times did the exactly same thing as you described above. I mean the local may have known of the animals existence, but to the outside world the animals were just regarded as myths. It was until the 1800s-1900s, these animals were finally captured and documented for the whole world to know about their existence.

[orangepeaceful79]

SkeptcByMindBelievrByHeart, on 18 January 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

Very plausible , orangepreacher76, but do you think people from ancient times did the exactly same thing as you described above. I mean the local may have known of the animals existence, but to the outside world the animals were just regarded as myths. It was until the 1800s-1900s, these animals were finally captured and documented for the whole world to know about their existence.

i think it is more plausible that people from an older time period misidentified animals or made up fantasy explanations ....certainly at least they did it as much as we do, but without the benefit of the knowledge that we have gained over time.

[QuiteContrary]

So very well said, orangepeaceful and Clobhair-cean

[SkeptcByMindBelievrByHeart]

orangepeaceful79, on 18 January 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

i think it is more plausible that people from an older time period misidentified animals or made up fantasy explanations ....certainly at least they did it as much as we do, but without the benefit of the knowledge that we have gained over time.

could it be possible that the people from a older time period misidentified animals or made up fantasy explanations ended up being a myth or a mythical creature?

Edited by SkeptcByMindBelievrByHeart, 19 January 2013 - 10:31 AM.

[orangepeaceful79]

SkeptcByMindBelievrByHeart, on 19 January 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

could it be possible that the people from a older time period misidentified animals or made up fantasy explanations ended up being a myth or a mythical creature?

It is likely that there is a kernel of truth at the center of some myths.  For instance when elephant skulls were discovered, the large cavity in the center of their forehead was mistakenly identified as being to ocular cavity of a cyclops.  So while SOME myths could be loosely based on real world facts it is however not logical to conclude that this makes all myths true or based on truth.  

More often it comes about that people - already believing in mythological creatures - use real life phenomenon, albeit spun or twisted a bit to support their pre-concieved notions.  For example when dinosaur bones were first excavated in England, there were some (already believing in dragon mythology) that postulated that these were dragon bones.  

The moral of the story is that one cannot cherrypick the veracity of an animal such as a gorilla, or okapi and then use that flawed logic to support the idea that other beasts (which have left us absolutely no evidence) must also be true.

[Trakkia]

You're just saying people back a few thousand years were idiots, had no imagination and couldn't come up with anything - "I believe the minds in them days were way to fickle to understand fully what happens in them days.." , "I mean people from thousands of years back didn’t have the resources or knowledge to make up such mythical creatures/stories"-, But hey, no one would hope for some higher power to help them when life sucks and their real higher power is farming them for all they can produce.

So not even the most experienced of people back then, with all the horrors and wonders they had back then couldn't come up with a story when these days we have little children blabbing endlessly about their fantasies and entire websites such as fiction press full of people, young teens, making quality and not so much quality stories, then you have other websites devoted to things like drawings, some depict imaginary creatures that artist has drawn.

By your logic another couple of thousand years and our imaginations will be so powerful that we can make the likes of pollution and what not else disappear with a mere thought, there would also be nightmarish monsters roaming  the other half of our world that escaped from that that; nightmares.

[DieChecker]

orangepeaceful79, on 19 January 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

It is likely that there is a kernel of truth at the center of some myths.  For instance when elephant skulls were discovered, the large cavity in the center of their forehead was mistakenly identified as being to ocular cavity of a cyclops.  So while SOME myths could be loosely based on real world facts it is however not logical to conclude that this makes all myths true or based on truth.  

I'm going to agree with this assessment. Basically some myths are based on a core of truth, but that does not make most, or even many, of the world's myths true. Myths usually are entirely untrue. If the myth of Thor was based on a 9th century warlord who used a hammer to fight with, or some such, then that is the core of the myth, but the thunder god Thor that we all know does not actual exist.

It is like if in 500 years Obama is known for wrestling George Bush and seizing the US Presidency from him. Even though George Bush and Barak Obama are real people, that does not make the myth concerning them in 500 years to be true.

By definition, unless supported by true known facts myth must always be regarded as not true. Kind of a Guilty till proven Innocent kind of thing.

Same goes for Crypto-critters. They must be considered not real till proven to exist. But, it is delightful fun and entertaining to speculate about them!!