Robert McLuhan on Anecdotal Evidence | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History

The very excellent Daily Grail brings us the following, by Alan Borky:Robert McLuhan on Anecdotal Evidence. Borky comments on his reading of McLuhan's article on anecdotal evidence:

In his piece McLuhan makes the observation "the skeptic’s most popular arguments is that anecdotal evidence can’t be relied on".

The problem with that particular skeptical position is it misses the point ALL EVIDENCE IS ANECDOTAL.

There is much more that is insightful and powerful. In this brief review Borky really gets it.

Endless PG Debate; Yeah, But There's Just One Thing . . .

For some perverse reason, I found myself once again lurking on the JREF message board in the surreal and looooooooooooooooonnnngggg (oh, so very long) thread Calling All Skeptics! Help Kitakaze End PGF Controversy - Pitch to Discovery Channel. As usual, I was struck by the bizarre and pathological - obsession of skeptics and debunkers to discuss, mock, and argue the non-existence of Sasquatch. And in particular, as on the above mentioned thread, the Patterson-Gimlin footage. "Kitakaze," as we know, has been on that hobby horse for some time; his crusade has been, well, interesting, as well as unnerving. (For example, see Melissa Hovey's comments about this on her blog The Search for Bigfoot.)

So, reading the last couple of pages in this thread, the sheer number of which boggles the mind -- it's what, around elevenity-million or something -- I had the idle thought that it doesn't matter if the P-G footage is a hoax or not, because, because, because: people have seen Bigfoot! Very simple.

Of course it does matter if the P-G film is of a real Sasquatch; my point is, in the great scheme of things, proving the P-G film is a hoax doesn't prove at all that Bigfoot does not not exist.

My question (rhetorical; please, if you're a skeptoid do not attempt to engage) is: if it's proven the P-G film is a hoax, will the discussion of Bigfoot's existence end for you all?  I doubt it; look at how many threads on the JREF there are about Bigfoot. A few dozen, easily. Not the first time I've asked this but I am intrigued: why spend so much time on something you believe doesn't exist? That you believe couldn't possibly exist, despite the number of witness accounts? 

New Bigfoot Thread on JREF: "Mormon Bigfoot Genesis Theory"

The JREF (James Randi Educational Forum) has a new thread on Bigfoot; this one is titled "Mormon Bigfoot Genesis Theory." I stopped counting long ago how many Bigfoot threads there are on the JREF but at last estimation, it was around sixty. Sixty seperate threads on a "skeptic" site about a creature the majority of posters don't believe exists.

Interesting thread, on the Mormon folklore about Sasquatch. And, about UFOs. Not connected, according to the OP, and I'm not that familiar with Mormon doctrine. But it is an interesting juxtaposition.

Naturally, the skeptoids scoff at this; because it's Bigfoot, because it's religion. (The only valid point made by the OP is the potential racism inherent in this folklore -- kind of like David Icke's and other Illuminati loving theorists, who disguise their anti-Semitism with code phrases like reptilians, world bankers, etc.)

But in reading about Mormon founder Joseph Smith's experiences, it's clear he had contact with something that is very close to alien/UFO encounters. And in reading the book of Mormon, with different tribes stealing chests full of DNA, -- it reads like a sci fi novel. Parallels are clear, as Biblical/religious text UFO researchers know.

JREF Bigfoot Thread Watch

This topic almost deserves a blog of its own.

Anyway, in the "What was that again, cognitive dissonance, irony calling" statement of the day, comes this comment from a BF thread over there titled 'Calling All Skeptics! Help Kitakaze End PGF Controversy - Pitch to Discovery Channel' certainly a long winded title. Thread starts off with the somberly serious self-congratulatory and yet endearingly naive plan to make a BF documentary that will forever silence BF believers and gratify skeptics. Then the thread devolves into fights amongst the debunkers themselves, namely William Parcher. But anyway, on the issue of why so many damn BF threads about something that doesn't exist by people who don't think it exists, this statement by "Blackdog":

I think people are wasting their time in the woods chasing BF but I don't think it's a waste of time to discuss it.

I love it. Just a delicious example of debunkers and their evil ways of moving goal posts, contradicting themselves, general dishonesty, and utterly oblivious to their own surreal exhibitions of humor.

So; going out and actually doing physical research and investigation in hopes of finding physical evidence, proof even, hopefully vs. staying at home and typing on your computer endless non-productive arguments about how something you don't believe exists, doesn't' t exist.

Sounds rational to me!

JREF Complains About "Censorship" at Cryptomundo

Some members of the JREF are complaining about what they see as censorship from Cryptomundo.

What I love is the typical response of the faux skeptic, when they are ignored, and that is the “it’s obvious woos/Bigfoot believers/UFO witnesses etc. fear what skeptics have to say” routine.

Read about it here.

“Show me the body”

Only a cold hard body will do . . .

In the article Bigfoot: Fact or Fiction as a sidebar to They’re on a mission to find Bigfoot in California, Michael Shermer, persistent uber skeptic, had this to say:

“Show me the body,” says Dr. Michael Shermer, executive director of the Altadena-based Skeptics society. “No one names a new species based on anecdotal evidence such as something spooky they heard in the night.”

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence however, and valid evidence. It isn’t enough to shout to the world Sasquatch exists, but it’s a start. That isn’t what has me shaking my head in a moment of surreal cognitive dissonance ; it’s the following comment by Shermer in response to Dr. Jeff Medlrum's plans to start an on line journal (The Relic Hominoid Inquiry,”) devoted to discussion and research on the topic:

Such efforts, Shermer says, are an exercise in futility.

Yes, but isn’t looking for something not yet proven to exist kind of scientific and all? If you want to find out if a thing exists, and you reject anecdotal evidence, why reject other avenues of exploration? Particularly avenues of exploration from your colleagues? (Yes, Mr. Shermer, Dr. Meldrum is too a scientist.) Isn’t making available and encouraging discussion of the thing you want to find out about a right step on the road to scientific discovery? Or at least inquiry?

Do faux skeptics even want Bigfoot to be found?

Let’s do it the uber way for a moment; going about it following the proper channels of the Scientism Code of How We Do Things. Anecdotal evidence, out! Okay. So the only other way to see if Bigfoot exists is to go out and look for it, right? And take castings of prints that could be, might be, of the big hairy darling. And chronicle the associated events in the context of Bigfoot encounters/sightings; wood knocking, rock throwing, scents, calls. Gather data.

And even encouraging other scientific individuals -- instead of the average Joe these pathological skeptics dismiss with such snooty rejection -- to communicate with each other.

And yet, confusingly, the Shermers of the world don’t see these endeavors as good things, or even well meaning but misguided things. Their minds seem to be made up, even while making dramatic demands: don’t waste time looking for Bigfoot or seriously studying the topic, but do please bring me a dead body.

Mr. Shermer seems more concerned with the evils of the imagination than looking for Bigfoot:

People have genuine experiences. The question is – what do those experiences represent?” Shermer says. “People have incredible imaginations. We're really good at just making stuff up.”

Let’s play their game and ask for proof, or at least really good evidence, that this is so. Shermer made a statement, now let’s see him prove it. Why and how do we make things up, and to what end? Why would the Bigfoot encounters share similarities? How does that all work; how and why do our minds create a big ass hairy monster in the woods? And why is that this hallucination, for lack of a better word, appears to more than one person at times (multiple witnesses) ? If we are to use the stale and often abused Occam’s Razor, Shermer’s “explanation” seems the less likely one. Are we to seriously accept that people, particularly those that live in rural and remote areas, are so unfamiliar with the local flora and fauna, so out of touch with the natural rhythms of their environment, so distanced from the behavior and personalities of their own pets and animals (cattle, sheep, etc.) that they have to “make stuff up?”