No you’re hoping to turn this into some culture war BS and it’s not. Not in this thread.
You keep saying you don’t care about the specific case but we were discussing specific cases. Nor does it seem like any of what you wrote seem to explain why any of us should entertain nonsense.
I read your pseudoscientific theory about how something must be behind these sightings. Fact is that’s not probability theory and near as I can tell from googling you were talking about Synchronicity. I’m not dismissing the theory as irrelevant, but it’s not scientific so it’s a little rich for you to come in here and using it to talk down to me for I guess being unscientific if that’s what you’ve decided I am.
Problem is your defense of these things is basing this entirely on people’s sighting. If you really have read as much psychology as you seem to have from your post, you’ll also know damn well that we can’t count on first hand accounts hardly at all. Memory is incredibly impressionable. One person can hear a story, see something they don’t understand and then correlate it from what they heard. Human imagination is very powerful and can convince them they saw or heard more than they did. But I suspect you know this and purposely don’t address it because it’s a flaw in the theory that all these sightings must have a legitimate paranormal origin.
I don’t doubt that there are a fair amount of people out there that think they saw an ape man in the woods or a ufo in the sky. They probably did see a large animal or a strange light in the sky. I wouldn’t mock someone for thinking they saw something. Hell I’ve been convinced Ive seen a ghost before.
I will probably not believe them however. And a sure as hell will mock someone for standing by a bullshit video they shared after its clear flaws are pointed out and they make up silly excuses to defend it.
dont miss that this is not an attack man... its an olive branch.
it is probability theory that i was referencing. william lane craig references its use often concerning the way more prevalent experiences with god. but its just simple logic and i came to it without ever consulting the theory. what is the probability that all of those sightings by individuals, all of those sightings by groups of people and by unconnected groups of people of the same object or thing across ages, culture, income and education levels are ALL hallucinations or lying or miss-identification?
i think the obvious answer is that its not possible and that is a perfectly reasonable and logical position hold. im not saying its a necessary position to hold.
not sure what your trying to say about my attachment to the outcome. its just the last thing on my mind in these threads. im not even attached to my own pet theory for hell sakes... it just makes sense of all the data better than any other after having thought about it a great deal over years and trying on many different perspectives for lengths of time. way more important are the emotional and psychological dynamics being played out in these threads though. this is just way way more interesting to me frankly. but i do have a deep and keen interest in these topics and have a lot of knowledge too, some of it first hand knowledge, and so its an area where i can reliably analyze things.
you can mock but you simply CANNOT know more about every single sighting than the person or people who where there... especially when you haven't ever read the accounts!!! thinking you can is nothing short of profound hubris. but also man... it hurts people and it is a massive contributor to the abandonment of reason these days. people do so much damage in the world this way. its unscientific in the extreme!!!
most of the time you can spot fallacies and lies and terrible logic in nearly every single post made by those who mock in the name of science. and all i can think is "why damage the cause like that"?
earlier in this thread someone claimed that jeff meldrum is a fraud that has been debunked. ... i happen to KNOW this is not true as ivevetted that guy DEEPLY. this man holds a phd in bipedal locomotion and has himself gathered track ways of bigfoot that he says cannot be faked... that contain dermal ridges and injuries and healing patterns that NOBODY could have the knowledge to fake or the ability to fake out in the middle of nowhere where he found them. these are not single tracks but trackways across varying substrate... its his area of expertise.... but many come in from all around the country and world too. so i read the debunking, again, as it turns out. it was a hack job 100% it lied, it omitted facts, it slandered and worse of all? it pretended the book he wrote for the public was meant to be a submitted scientific paper and then denigrated it for including accounts from witnessed not taken by psychologists. all this when they could have actually critiqued the actual scientific papers he has published!!! but that would have been harder because he really is an expert in the field of bipedal locomotion and his papers are NOT bullshit.
this is outright lying and slandering and manipulation by the VERY PEOPLE that claim to be defenders of scientific accuracy. its an absolute joke and when people who have no education see that kind of thing they are not stupid... they dont miss it man. and it turns them away from science because they confuse the crowd of emotionally charged lunatics with science itself. its also interesting that people that identify with science miss all of that as it confirms the a priory assumption...
all of this because of an a priory bias on the part of the science crowd and their hubris!!!
anyway man i dont know your post history and often i dont look to see who posted a post because i dont want to create too much bias so im not saying that most of this applies to you at all. im just saying that if we are really going to value logic and reason then there are lots of perspectives outside of the box that can and should be considered thoughtfully. wolfgang smith is a renowned physicist and held 3 phd's by the time he was 18 or so if i remember. he is no slouch. he applies the EXACT same notion i do on how to explain the variety of things people experience on the spiritual level. its similar but not identical to jungs work. he is also publishing or has published a paper trying to explain how all of this is possible though a new theory of quantum physics. that is a heavy hitter talking just like me only way better.... its not important if his theory will hold out. what is important is that thinking people... way better minds than yours and mine are thinking along these lines.
i dont ask anyone to agree with my perspectives. disagreements are guaranteed even. my position is that they are reasonable.. well thought out... and logical and that mocking goes so far it loses all credibility and ground in logic and reason itself. when the person does this kind of thing in the name of science its really a tragedy and an expression of a new religion called scientism. its just as hypocritical as modern day evangelicals who are trump supporters.
anyway man i have goodwill towards you and im not saying all or even much of this applies to you. im just defending my position as perfectly reasonable, if not necessary, and deserving of respect.
