[evancj]

Belief in one cryptid requires belief in all cryptids.

I would argue that if you believe in one cryptid then you have to believe in all of them.

The evidence (or lack there of) believers use to support their conviction that these animals exist is virtually the same for all the major cryptids.

1. Shaky/burly film and photos.
2. Un-confirmable and often questionable eyewitness accounts.
3. Old outdated myths and legends.
4. The dismissal of; proven hoaxes, the lack of physical evidence, and the discounting of mainstream science that overwhelmingly refutes the existence of these ephemeral creatures.

I am curious to know, based on the criteria above, it would seem to me that if you believe in big foot (for example), then you would also have to believe Nessie, and all other cryptids, because they all present the same exact evidence.

So my question is; do all believers in cryptids believe in all cryptids? If not why?

Thanks for your input.

[Wallydraigle]

You can't logic people out of a position they didn't logic themselves into.

[Nestle Wilson]

I disagree, and that sounds like a rather silly argument to me. You mentioned questionable eyewitness accounts, well what if that account is my own? I'll use the examples you used. If I say don't believe in Nessie because I've never seen convincing proof, but then I go out for a hike and Bigfoot attacks me and rips my face off, am I then suddenly supposed to believe in Nessie because I now know that Bigfoot is real?

And you talk about unconfirmable accounts. If the accounts were confirmable, then they creatures that the accounts are regarding wouldn't be "Cryptids" because everyone would know they were real. So every account of a cryptid, by definition, has to be unconfirmable, no?

[Wallydraigle]

If you were attacked by bigfoot, then you would have made an observation, which is the beginning of the scientific method. From there you could collect data and form hypotheses, and no longer rely on "belief". Most people have never observed bigfoot, but believe in it anyway.

An eye witness account can be unconfirmed but still be confirmable. Someone saying, "I saw something in the woods which I can't explain," is unconfirmable. Someone saying, "I saw a large, bipedal primate covered in dark brown fur, at such and such location at such and such time" is confirmable. You could actually go to that place and try to collect data. Most eye witness accounts sadly belong to the former category, but are still counted as "evidence".

Obviously, some cryptids are at least more plausible than others, but I think what the OP is getting at is that picking and choosing which to put blind faith in is ridiculous, when it's equally silly to believe in any.

[evancj]

Nestle Wilson on Feb 9 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

I disagree, and that sounds like a rather silly argument to me. You mentioned questionable eyewitness accounts, well what if that account is my own? I'll use the examples you used. If I say don't believe in Nessie because I've never seen convincing proof, but then I go out for a hike and Bigfoot attacks me and rips my face off, am I then suddenly supposed to believe in Nessie because I now know that Bigfoot is real?

And you talk about unconfirmable accounts. If the accounts were confirmable, then they creatures that the accounts are regarding wouldn't be "Cryptids" because everyone would know they were real. So every account of a cryptid, by definition, has to be unconfirmable, no?

I am by no means questioning your honesty or integrity, but I do not know you, and can not accept your eyewitness account with out any supporting physical evidence. If accept yours then I have to accept all eyewitness accounts as valid evidence. Which means I would have to accept all cryptids as real based on all eyewitness accounts.

This post has been edited by evancj: 09 February 2008 - 08:08 PM

[Guyver]

One cryptid is not the same as other cryptids as earlier people have shown. What it comes down to is what you consider evidence. Bigfoot is not accepted by science at this time. Does that mean that the creature does not exist, or at least has existed recently? It does not. True, the kind of evidence that science needs to validate and catalog the species is not there yet. I do wonder why it has taken so long to get that evidence. But, if someone told you that your house was on fire, you should get out. CREDIBLE witnesses have reported seeing the creature, and the accompanying signs of footprints associated with those sightings have been documented. To document something is to keep a record of the event. Just like scientists document their results in a labratory. This forms the basis for repeatable scientific inquiry. You have to decide to accept or reject the documentation for yourself. I personally think that some people are liars and others are honest. I'm honest. I would not report a false sighting of bigfoot. I believe that there are many others like me who are credible and have reported what they've seen. And yes, the eyes can play tricks on you, but not all the time. I disagree with the skeptics who post here completely. To me the "circumstancial evidence" if you want to call it that, shows an unknown primate. There's just to much to dismiss it all. As for nessie, ufo's and fairies or elves, dogman or whatever, I don't see convining evidence for those types of cryptids, but I also haven't spent as much time researching them. That's my opinion on the matter.

[Incorrigible1]

evancj on Feb 9 2008, 02:04 PM, said:

I am by no means questioning your honesty or integrity, but I do not know you, and can not accept your eyewitness account with out any supporting physical evidence. If accept yours then I have to accept all eyewitness accounts as valid evidence.

Not at all. Some eyewitness accounts are far more compelling, and plausible. Why would you "have to accept all eyewitness accounts as valid evidence?"

[evancj]

Incorrigible1 on Feb 9 2008, 01:31 PM, said:

Not at all. Some eyewitness accounts are far more compelling, and plausible. Why would you "have to accept all eyewitness accounts as valid evidence?"

"compelling, and plausible" according to who? What generally accepted criteria would you use as a BS filter? From a scientific stand point without tangible physical evidence to back up a sighting, that sighting can not be considered evidence.

What I am most interested in learning is how, lets say for example; a believer in bigfoot comes to the conclusion that reported dinosaurs living in the modern day Congo aren't real. I want to know why the disbelieve the existence of modern day dinosaurs yet believe in bigfoot when existence of both of these cryptids are based on the exact same evidence.

This post has been edited by evancj: 09 February 2008 - 09:43 PM

[doesnt_matter]

evancj on Feb 9 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

Belief in one cryptid requires belief in all cryptids.

I would argue that if you believe in one cryptid then you have to believe in all of them.

The evidence (or lack there of) believers use to support their conviction that these animals exist is virtually the same for all the major cryptids.

1. Shaky/burly film and photos.
2. Un-confirmable and often questionable eyewitness accounts.
3. Old outdated myths and legends.
4. The dismissal of; proven hoaxes, the lack of physical evidence, and the discounting of mainstream science that overwhelmingly refutes the existence of these ephemeral creatures.

I am curious to know, based on the criteria above, it would seem to me that if you believe in big foot (for example), then you would also have to believe Nessie, and all other cryptids, because they all present the same exact evidence.

So my question is; do all believers in cryptids believe in all cryptids? If not why?

Thanks for your input.

So because some people believed the gorilla existed when it was considered a cryptid , then those people believed all cryptids exist?

[Incorrigible1]

evancj on Feb 9 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

"compelling, and plausible" according to who? What generally accepted criteria would you use as a BS filter? From a scientific stand point without tangible physical evidence to back up a sighting, that sighting can not be considered evidence.

A Washington State park ranger or game warden makes an eyewitness account of a glimpse of a large, upright, hairy creature.

A tourist from the midwest, driving through a remote part of Oregon stops to change a flat tire, and encounters a large, upright, hairy creature.

Must you lend equal credence to both scenarios? Not in my book.

The rush to deny reports from respected, sane and sober people with an outdoors background is rather silly.

[makaya325]

if their was a good number of real reports and that was buried in with fake sightings, does that mean its not real? no

[~ MacDDT ~]

evancj on Feb 9 2008, 01:53 PM, said:

Belief in one cryptid requires belief in all cryptids.

I would argue that if you believe in one cryptid then you have to believe in all of them.

The evidence (or lack there of) believers use to support their conviction that these animals exist is virtually the same for all the major cryptids.

1. Shaky/burly film and photos.
2. Un-confirmable and often questionable eyewitness accounts.
3. Old outdated myths and legends.
4. The dismissal of; proven hoaxes, the lack of physical evidence, and the discounting of mainstream science that overwhelmingly refutes the existence of these ephemeral creatures.

I am curious to know, based on the criteria above, it would seem to me that if you believe in big foot (for example), then you would also have to believe Nessie, and all other cryptids, because they all present the same exact evidence.

So my question is; do all believers in cryptids believe in all cryptids? If not why?

Thanks for your input.

thats like saying if you believe there is a chance of life outside of our planet then you have to believe in all the alien and ufo stories ... weak reasoning evancj

[Undeadskeptic]

What a moronic argument and a waste of my time.

[evancj]

Yetihunter on Feb 9 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

One cryptid is not the same as other cryptids as earlier people have shown. What it comes down to is what you consider evidence. Bigfoot is not accepted by science at this time. Does that mean that the creature does not exist, or at least has existed recently? It does not. True, the kind of evidence that science needs to validate and catalog the species is not there yet. I do wonder why it has taken so long to get that evidence. But, if someone told you that your house was on fire, you should get out. CREDIBLE witnesses have reported seeing the creature, and the accompanying signs of footprints associated with those sightings have been documented. To document something is to keep a record of the event. Just like scientists document their results in a labratory. This forms the basis for repeatable scientific inquiry. You have to decide to accept or reject the documentation for yourself. I personally think that some people are liars and others are honest. I'm honest. I would not report a false sighting of bigfoot. I believe that there are many others like me who are credible and have reported what they've seen. And yes, the eyes can play tricks on you, but not all the time. I disagree with the skeptics who post here completely. To me the "circumstancial evidence" if you want to call it that, shows an unknown primate. There's just to much to dismiss it all. As for nessie, ufo's and fairies or elves, dogman or whatever, I don't see convining evidence for those types of cryptids, but I also haven't spent as much time researching them. That's my opinion on the matter.

Thanks for the well thought out response Yetihunter,

You have a lot of valid points that I can agree with.

[Undeadskeptic]

Still a moronic waste of time.