[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 05 November 2009 - 04:43 AM, said:

I suppose it would depend on how you interpret the question. I thought it was a personal question on if I was to believe in one crypto creature, then I should believe in them all. Here is evancj's original OP.


He clearly is making this a question of personal beliefs, not about what you believe others opinions should be. The fact that I don't believe in one creature and others do, does not affect the OP question at all. The fact that not everyone even knows about all crytids must mean that no one can believe in them all.

The entire question revolves around if individuals are allowed to decide what they consider evidence or not. Each person makes his own choice of what is enough evidence. And, not everyone accepts the same evidence, so we can not determine who will believe in what. So, the question of "Does belief in one require belief in all?", can be clearly answered with No.

If everyone does not accept the same evidence, yet the evidence reveals naught, as in the latest Pendek kerfuffle, what right do the Pendek people have to tell a Nessie Believer that their reason for belief is invalid? What do the Pendek People have that the Nessie people do not? Is the footprint photo any more convincing than Robert Rhines flipper photo? I feel the answer is no for the average punter.

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 05 November 2009 - 04:49 AM, said:

Right. That is your Opinion. They reportedly are making a documentry of the evidence. Why are they somehow required by the nebulous internet to post their data immediately? It is their data, to be displayed as they see fit. If the data never comes out, or takes years, then clearly it was made up. Biscardi is a good example of this. He makes claims and then is unable to produce any evidence at all.

Are we to consider everything fake till it is proven true? If so, then science will come to a crawl as millions of experiments and observations are repeated over and over by thousands and thousands of researchers. Because each will have to confirm, because why should he believe in anyone? The is a point of too much skepticism.

I do believe that is pretty much how scientific method works. Empirical evidence. S2F hit the nail on the head with one of my favorite quotes, Standing on the Shoulder of Giants.

[evancj]

karl 12, on 04 November 2009 - 03:39 PM, said:

By using that rationale,wouldn't it mean that people who beleived in the one abrahamic god would have to beleive in all the other gods (and goddesses) from all the other mythologies too?

I could just see muslims bowing down to Zeus or christians worshipping Sorbek the Egyptian crocodile god.

I think theres a flaw in your reasoning somewhere.

I would suggest you read though this entire thread as you are not the first person to attempt to bring god and religion into this conversation. I feel that religion is more of a cultural thing or purely a personal choice that is made not by critical thinking or by using the scientific method. Belife in a religion/god requires faith not logic. Are you saying that your belife in ceyptids is based on faith, and not critical thinking? If this is the case then I would say that it is your reasoning that is flawed not mine.

To answer you question; yes you could easily transfer the same statement/question over to religion. As I have said many times in this thread; which god/religion has more evidence to support the existence of it's god, or the truth of it's doctrine? So far not one person has answered this question.

If you go by shear numbers of believers to determine the truth (as most people who believe in cryptids seem to do) then Christianity must be the true religion because it has the most believers around the world. If we use numbers alone (this is not my reasoning, this is the reasoning of some cryptid believers that have replied in this thread) then non christian religions are discounted as not real.

This post has been edited by evancj: 05 November 2009 - 12:45 AM

[evancj]

psyche101, on 04 November 2009 - 03:45 PM, said:

I do believe that is pretty much how scientific method works. Empirical evidence. S2F hit the nail on the head with one of my favorite quotes, Standing on the Shoulder of Giants.

Add peer reviews to this process and you get a very effective self policing system that weeds out all the junk. Science is more critical of itself than any professional discipline on this earth. Cryptozoology has nothing of the sort. It a free for all pseudoscience that is in no way organized, or self policing.

[psyche101]

evancj, on 05 November 2009 - 10:30 AM, said:

I would suggest you read though this entire thread as you are not the first person to attempt to bring god and religion into this conversation. I feel that religion is more of a cultural thing or purely a personal choice that is made not by critical thinking or by using the scientific method. Belife in a religion/god requires faith not logic. Are you saying that your belife in ceyptids is based on faith, and not critical thinking? If this is the case then I would say that it is your reasoning that is flawed not mine.

To answer you question; yes you could easily transfer the same statement/question over to religion. As I have said many times in this thread; which god/religion has more evidence to support the existence of it's god, or the truth of it's doctrine? So far not one person has answered this question.

If you go by shear numbers of believers to determine the truth (as most people who believe in cryptids seem to do) then Christianity must be the true religion because it has the most believers around the world. If we use numbers alone (this is not my reasoning, this is the reasoning of some cryptid believers that have replied in this thread) then non christian religions are discounted as not real.

And that in a great many cases religion is brainwashed into an individual from birth.

[DieChecker]

Slave2Fate, on 04 November 2009 - 02:21 PM, said:

That is why scientists use research notes and formal conclusions for their experiments. It can be looked at by others, and if shown that the scientific process has been adhered to then it can be considered legitimate. That is where the term "standing on the shoulders of giants" comes from. Scientists don't produce conclusions without showing their work as it wouldn't be considered viable research. Cryptozoologists however do this all the time, a conclusion is presented without any conclusive evidence to back it up. Cryptozoology resembles science (barely) but it isn't.

That being said though, the predominate facet of every crypto theory is the human element. humans with a theory/hypothesis, humans with sightings, humans with stories, humans with so called evidence etc. etc.. I think that side of the coin should be looked at just as closely as the cryptids themselves, if not closer.

Yet, there are many who fake their data and draw shoddy conclusions, and have plenty of notes and other evidences. The only way to disprove them is to repeat the experiment, as with Cold Fusion a few years back. No one else could duplicate the data. My point being just because you follow the scientific method does not mean people will believe you and take your research/data as true.

I have to agree that the preponderance of mysterious animals are probably existing only in the minds of humans. But, since I think there is evidence of some, that is not accepted as evidence by most (Prints, hair, pics, sounds, eyewitness reports) that there is a chance of some being real. The very fact that so many people who believe in one thing or another have commented that they do believe in some and not others should be a major datapoint for this discussion. That the Rationalists do not think that way simply means they are not Believers, of which this thread was made to specifically discuss.

psyche101, on 04 November 2009 - 02:42 PM, said:

If everyone does not accept the same evidence, yet the evidence reveals naught, as in the latest Pendek kerfuffle, what right do the Pendek people have to tell a Nessie Believer that their reason for belief is invalid? What do the Pendek People have that the Nessie people do not? Is the footprint photo any more convincing than Robert Rhines flipper photo? I feel the answer is no for the average punter.

I don't think this thread is supposed to be about who tells what to whom. I think it is about indiviual choice and individual analysis of information. To some the Nessie flipper is more convincing then the Pendak footprint. And so some will believe in Nessie and others in Pendak, and some in both. But, belief in both is not required. All cryptos are mutually exclusive in that sense.

Can one believe in Gillgamesh and not in Heracles? Can one bleive in Tom Sawyer and not in Huck Finn? Can one believe in King Aurther and not in Cool Mac Finn? I say yes, you can believe in one and not the other. It is personal choice based on personal judgement of evidence gathered during ones lifetime.

evancj, on 04 November 2009 - 04:44 PM, said:

Add peer reviews to this process and you get a very effective self policing system that weeds out all the junk. Science is more critical of itself than any professional discipline on this earth. Cryptozoology has nothing of the sort. It a free for all pseudoscience that is in no way organized, or self policing.

Exactly. And who does the peer review on these eyewitness stories? That is right, anyone and everyone. So it would seem impossible to nail down any specifics on how exactly it is to be managed. A crypto can be almost anything and hold the name.

I think the point some are trying to make is that there should be no belief in any crypto creature at all. Belief in even one is a sign of ignorance of the highest order. Therefore you can not believe in just one, as that is as stupid as believing in them all. Is that right?

[evancj]

psyche101, on 04 November 2009 - 08:10 PM, said:

And that in a great many cases religion is brainwashed into an individual from birth.

Excellent observation psyche, my guess is that the majority of religious folks are born into it which is what I met by cultural.

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 05 November 2009 - 01:24 PM, said:

I don't think this thread is supposed to be about who tells what to whom. I think it is about indiviual choice and individual analysis of information. To some the Nessie flipper is more convincing then the Pendak footprint. And so some will believe in Nessie and others in Pendak, and some in both. But, belief in both is not required. All cryptos are mutually exclusive in that sense.

Can one believe in Gillgamesh and not in Heracles? Can one bleive in Tom Sawyer and not in Huck Finn? Can one believe in King Aurther and not in Cool Mac Finn? I say yes, you can believe in one and not the other. It is personal choice based on personal judgement of evidence gathered during ones lifetime.

How do you substantiate the belief then? If you keep it to yourself, who can know what you believe in?

It is personal opinion.

Looking at you example from a third party standpoint.
The person who believes in King Arthur (I assume the references are hypothetical and not meant to be substantiated by dates) is using the same data set the the Mac Finn believer is. His personal preference.

Which one has more right to believe? Neither. Can the King Arthur believer disprove the Mac Finn believer with King Arthur evidence? No. He is not telling him what to believe, but he has no more than the Mc Finn believer to substantiate his own claim, therefore he cannot disprove the Mac Finn believer. The Mac Finn believer in this instance has brought to the table exactly what the King Arthur believer has. So they are on even par. The King Arthur believer uses personal preference to elevate his preferred outcome over Mc Finn. Much like Biff over nature.

DieChecker, on 05 November 2009 - 01:24 PM, said:

Exactly. And who does the peer review on these eyewitness stories? That is right, anyone and everyone. So it would seem impossible to nail down any specifics on how exactly it is to be managed. A crypto can be almost anything and hold the name.

I feel that is a disservice to the phenomena. Allowing every tom dick and harry in will certainly reduce credibility. Cryptozoologists will be bunched as Unicorn chasing idiots. This is a field sorely in need of credibility.

I also feel Bernard Heuvelmans, who coined the phrase, would be less than impressed with the loose definitions and gate crashers. It certainly does not reflect his definition.

DieChecker, on 05 November 2009 - 01:24 PM, said:

I think the point some are trying to make is that there should be no belief in any crypto creature at all. Belief in even one is a sign of ignorance of the highest order. Therefore you can not believe in just one, as that is as stupid as believing in them all. Is that right?

That is not what I get from the thread at all. I think this thread has in fact said the opposite. In fact I feel I have learned that in the past I have been very complacent with defining belief from plausibility. It will no doubt be a valuable lesson with future evaluations. I would hope it might prompt some to look closer at presented evidence. It has said do not discount that which does not appeal to you on that very basis. In effect a kick in the complacency. Very valuable advice IMHO.

evancj, on 05 November 2009 - 01:26 PM, said:

Excellent observation psyche, my guess is that the majority of religious folks are born into it which is what I met by cultural.

We would make a darn fine team I feel

This post has been edited by psyche101: 05 November 2009 - 04:25 AM

[evancj]

DieChecker, on 04 November 2009 - 08:24 PM, said:

Yet, there are many who fake their data and draw shoddy conclusions, and have plenty of notes and other evidences. The only way to disprove them is to repeat the experiment, as with Cold Fusion a few years back. No one else could duplicate the data. My point being just because you follow the scientific method does not mean people will believe you and take your research/data as true.

The Cold Fusion scam is an excellent example of science policing itself and exposing fraudulent claims. There is no such mechanism in cryptozoology all reports are grouped into one overarching plausible category regardless of how ridiculous they are. If science operated like cryptozoology we would still be arguing about the results of the Cold Fusion scam. Some would believe and would argue that they did really do it while skeptics would argue they didn't. Without the checks and balances of the scientific method, and peer reviews we would have to take the scammers word for it, just like we do for witnesses for cryptids.

DieChecker, on 04 November 2009 - 08:24 PM, said:

I have to agree that the preponderance of mysterious animals are probably existing only in the minds of humans. But, since I think there is evidence of some, that is not accepted as evidence by most (Prints, hair, pics, sounds, eyewitness reports) that there is a chance of some being real. The very fact that so many people who believe in one thing or another have commented that they do believe in some and not others should be a major datapoint for this discussion. That the Rationalists do not think that way simply means they are not Believers, of which this thread was made to specifically discuss.

I have conceded many times in this thread that I understand on a basic level why some people would believe in one cyrptid over another. But the fact still remains that even the most ridiculous cryptids have almost the exact same evidence as the more likely cryptids. And both types have believers that swear they believe in them. or are sure they have seen them. We have been all but told that all witnesses and believers of the jersey devil are lairs, or insane. While witnesses and believers of bigfoot are some how good upstanding individuals that should not be questioned?

DieChecker, on 04 November 2009 - 08:24 PM, said:

I don't think this thread is supposed to be about who tells what to whom. I think it is about indiviual choice and individual analysis of information. To some the Nessie flipper is more convincing then the Pendak footprint. And so some will believe in Nessie and others in Pendak, and some in both. But, belief in both is not required. All cryptos are mutually exclusive in that sense.

You are right this thread is definitely NOT intended to be about who tells what to whom. It was met to stimulate a discussion on how people pick and choose their personal cryptid/s of choice.

DieChecker, on 04 November 2009 - 08:24 PM, said:

Exactly. And who does the peer review on these eyewitness stories? That is right, anyone and everyone. So it would seem impossible to nail down any specifics on how exactly it is to be managed. A crypto can be almost anything and hold the name.

Yep you got that right. And there in lays the problem with cryptids.

DieChecker, on 04 November 2009 - 08:24 PM, said:

I think the point some are trying to make is that there should be no belief in any crypto creature at all. Belief in even one is a sign of ignorance of the highest order. Therefore you can not believe in just one, as that is as stupid as believing in them all. Is that right?

I hope you don't think that's my point. I don't think you are stupid at all.

[evancj]

psyche101, on 04 November 2009 - 09:22 PM, said:

We would make a darn fine team I feel

I concur

[Samael]

I disagree. I base my belief in cryptids on the likelihood of them existing under known biological 'laws'. For example, the ahool, as nothing more exciting than a freaking huge bat, is fairly plausible. On the other hand, we have things like the Jersey Devil, which is just....no. All I can say is no.

[Agent. Mulder]

Samael, on 05 November 2009 - 05:34 PM, said:

I disagree. I base my belief in cryptids on the likelihood of them existing under known biological 'laws'. For example, the ahool, as nothing more exciting than a freaking huge bat, is fairly plausible. On the other hand, we have things like the Jersey Devil, which is just....no. All I can say is no.

exactly. one cryptid does not require belief in all. its not like gods and religions, where theyre all equal and share no shred of evidence.
you can believe in the thylacine, but not the mothman. you can believe in sasquatch, but not the chupacabra. no problem.

[psyche101]

Samael, on 06 November 2009 - 03:34 AM, said:

I disagree. I base my belief in cryptids on the likelihood of them existing under known biological 'laws'. For example, the ahool, as nothing more exciting than a freaking huge bat, is fairly plausible. On the other hand, we have things like the Jersey Devil, which is just....no. All I can say is no.

Is that not saying you do not believe in cryptids (as the accepted term seems to include anything and everything any person can dream up) in general, they are simply known species or sub-species yet to be catalogued?

BTW, I am not disagreeing with you here.

This post has been edited by psyche101: 06 November 2009 - 12:46 AM

[psyche101]

evancj, on 05 November 2009 - 02:37 PM, said:

I hope you don't think that's my point. I don't think you are stupid at all.

If I can add weight to this statement, I too feel you are at the other end of that scale Diechecker. I too do not think you are stupid to chase the 1%, just curious. The term stupid does not apply where you are concerned. I apologize if that is the impression you have received.

[evancj]

Agent. Mulder, on 05 November 2009 - 11:06 AM, said:

exactly. one cryptid does not require belief in all. its not like gods and religions, where theyre all equal and share no shred of evidence.
you can believe in the thylacine, but not the mothman. you can believe in sasquatch, but not the chupacabra. no problem.

I agree that religion has no place in this conversation but it seems that some of your fellow believers see the correlation between cryptids and god.

I disagree that there is any (even half way descent) evidence to support any cryptid. I also disagree that the thylacine is or ever will be a cryptid. It is nothing more than a species considered to be extinct.