I PMed this to Arsquatch in answer to a question she had. I thought it would make an interesting topic for discussion.

DTK

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

OBJECTIVISM -- THE IDEAL STATE OF MIND

In dealing with an unsubstantiated, hairy but human-like creature such as the legendary Sasquatch, to be an effective researcher, I believe one has to be a romantic idealist before he or she can be anything else. At this point in history, we are dealing with an entity that is still squarely situated within the realm of legend and folklore, therefore, it is important for a researcher in this field to be able to passionately believe in things that have not yet been fully substantiated. Passion propels pursuit. A passionate idealist can be in love with the idea of Sasquatch, even without having solid proof of its existence. (I.e. Jane Goodall) Romanticism is only bad when taken to an extreme where everything except scientifically sound evidence becomes proof of existence in the romantic’s imagination. To move from the realm of fiction to fact concerning the existence of Bigfoot, one must become an objective thinker. One must put emphasis on the actual, emphasizing external realities rather than just simple beliefs or feelings. I believe that scientific methods must be employed and departments of systemized knowledge must be developed to uncover and analyze any existing evidence, enabling us to separate myth from reality. Healthy skepticism must be employed in this process so that the right questions are asked and the correct deductions are made. Nevertheless, internal beliefs and convictions need not be entirely placed aside to undertake this quest.

In short, I believe that some romanticism is warranted in order to propel passionate pursuit, but I also believe that a healthy dose of skepticism is also required to scientifically determine fact from fiction. This brings us to the ideal state of objectivism, which enables us to make final conclusions that are not based solely on our beliefs or feelings, but also on factual determinations and findings.

From this equation (Equation: a term that denotes something is equal), I have derived the terms “scimantic” and “skemantic” to describe what I believe should be our target mindset in approaching something that may quite possibly exist but has not yet been proven substantive by irrefutable evidence.

Hence my statement, “In truth, I consider myself a 'skemantic' (or 'scimantic,' take your pick) as I believe objectivism is the appropriate balance between skepticism and romanticism."

Submitted for your consideration,

David Thomas King
NESRA
Wednesday, June 1st, 2005




[title edited to remove CAPS - paul]

okay, so I added the last part. Objectivism still fk'n ROCKS.

Okay, I guess this topic is boring. I thought it might be intersting to some. I'll try to find some more interesting topics to post.

As Bigfootie would say,

Peace out!

DTK

OK, I'll bite (again - that's twice today!)

I've read your post several times and I'm pretty sure I disagree with you almost entirely.


OK, right there we're starting off on the wrong foot. I think we have entirely too many romantic idealists out there to begin with. Give me a grizzled old skeptic any day of the week. You say 'romantic' and I think of someone who wants more than anything to see or hear bigfoot everywhere. An effective researcher this does not make.

Additionally, we are a group who are already considered - even the most logical and skeptical of us - as a fairly looney bunch by 'regular people'. I have been struggling against the romantic perspective for as long as I've been posting here and talking to people about this subject. The last thing we need is more romantics or for the ones to do have to get more romantic.


I do not beleive sasquatch is 'squarely situated within the realm of legend and folklore'. Far from it. There is real evidence out there and more is being collected. This is a creature seen by thousands of people for hundreds of years (thousands of years if you want to include those who were here before the Europeans showed up). This is not just a legendary creature any more.


I do not disagree that passion propels pursuit. However, pursuit propelled by passion rooted in anything other than the observable and real world is a path to nowhere rife with sidetracks and detours into the depths of one's imagination.


I think any element of romanticism introduces an unstable foundation. Scientists cannot afford to be romantic in their endeavors and neither should we.


I agree with everything you wrote there.


I also agree with this. But internal beliefs and convictions can never be put in front of the task at hand.


Well, to sum up my position, any amount of romanticism can lead to a slippery slope ending in blobsquatch photos and hearing bigfoot every time one goes out into the woods. What you've written sounds very good, but, in my opinion, is pretty much self-contradictory.

Am I the only one that is glad to see bipto back in action here?

Very well said Bip, and I think that last part sums it up quite nicely.

No! It's about time!!!!!!!!!
Ditto, Sam!

Belle

Not sure if you intended or not, but Objectivism is what Ayn Rand called her philosophy: Objectivism

Bipto always makes since

A "romantic idealist" this is not.

Thanks for the response Bipto,



I totally agree with you about romantics seeing and hearing Bigfoot everywhere and anywhere. This is definitely damaging to the credibility of Bigfoot in the eyes of the public. This is what I refer to as "extreme romanticism." Jane Goodall considers herself to be a self-professed romantic. She's in love with the idea of the existence of Sasquatch, even when there's still no irrefutable evidence supporting its existence. I think many of us started out the same way. Footprints and other evidence was I'm sure a boost to our passion, but I think many would have to admit (except those who have had an actual sighting) that they were first in love with the idea of Bigfoot and that is what gave them the passion to pursue it. Do you see where I'm coming from?



I don't think that what you have been struggling against is true romanticism Brian. It think it has been EXTREME ROMANTICISM or delusional "flakes" with some kind of mental disorder who give Bigfoot a bad name. Jane Goodall cannot be placed in this category. I think we need to be passionately in love with the idea of Bigfoot to have what it takes to diligently pursue what evidence presently exists. Said again, aside from those who have had an actual encounter, I think the majority of Bigfoot enthusiasts begin here. Just my opinion.



There is real evidence of SOMETHING out there but it's not yet irrefutable. As "Tubes" recent dermal ridge thread shows, much of this evidence is still in question. Until we have a body or clear and extensive footage of possible Sasquatch creatures, this phenomenon is still more legend and lore than reality.


No disagreement there.



Maybe romanticism isn't the best word to describe what I'm talking about here. When I use the term romanticism I'm not talking about attributing every strange experience to Sasquatch. I'm talking about having the ability to passionately believe in things that have not been substantiated irrefutably yet. This is a trait that I believe we both strongly posses, as do most here.


Nor be put in front of facts to the contrary. Conceded 100%.


I would qualify this statement by using the term "extreme romanticism" (Maybe there should be a better term used to describe this). It's the "nut jobs" and "flakes" that cause these problems, not TRUE romantics IMO. Like I said, I believe the definition of a true romantic is simply someone who is in love with the idea of Sasquatch even though they haven't seen one yet. Who would dare accuse Jane Goodall of promoting blobsquatch photos and hearing Bigfoot every time she goes out into the wilderness? But she loves the idea that such uncatalogued primates might indeed exist. This same love for the unseen and unexperienced is what motivates many to become interested in Bigfoot. It's the key to getting MANY more people interested in the subject as well, which is good for diminishing the overall stigma and negative press that has followed Bigfoot enthusiasts over that last 40+ years. We must get people to fall in love with the idea of Bigfoot by getting others to share their stories and experiences (Romanticism). From there we "solidify" and "cement" their interest and curiosity with what little evidence we have at the moment (Scientific scrutiny of footprints, pictures etc.). In my opinion, there is no irrefutable evidence of Bigfoot's existence at this time. Every bit of evidence we have is still in the category of the possibility of being real, but it's not yet irrefutable fact. (I.e. PG film, footprints & dermal ridges, hair samples and other video, audio and photographic evidence.) Because of this there is the continued need for healthy romanticism or passionate belief in the unproven.

My definition of a true romantic: "Someone who is able to passionately believe in something that might possibly exist but has not yet been irrefutably proven. A true romantic is NOT someone who is in love with their own fantasies and wild imaginations who claim their delusions are fact in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary."

I’m talking about the word romanticism used as a noun or verb, not an adjective.



Used in this sense romanticism is good.


Used in this sense romanticism is bad.

When I use the term true romanticism, I’m talking about having a hunch (an impression that something might be the case) based on lore (knowledge passed down through tradition or anecdote [Example: "Early peoples passed on plant and animal lore through legend"]) that leads to a passionate belief that the lore may in reality be based on fact (even though irrefutable evidence is still yet to be discovered). A true romantic is one who is intrigued by such lore, and feels that it may have its basis in fact and is lured into pursuit of the truth because the thought of this lore being real has an exciting and mysterious quality. It fascinates him or her. As long as one remains sensible about practical matters and does not purport unrealistic claims based solely on fantasy, foolishness and imaginations, his romantic motivation is a good thing. Every Bigfoot believer who has NOT had a sighting of his or her own IS A ROMANTIC in this sense of the word. Why? Because they are motivated by nothing more than lore (A story they read or heard) and a hunch and fascination that there may be substance to the tale.

In my opinion, what really needs to be targeted and eradicated is lunacy (foolish or senseless behavior) or romanticism taken to the extreme causing one to be unrealistic and non sensible about practical matters.

In this light, I see no contradiction between skepticism and romanticism whatsoever. If you still do, please explain. Maybe there's a better way to phrase what I’m trying to say here, but I do believe my thinking is sound and well balanced.

DTK

The highest percentage of people who have had a sighting actually had the sighting before they became interested in my opinion. They weren't looking for the animal when they saw one, but stumbled upon it or were in the right place at the right time, or wrong place at the wrong time depending on how they perceive their encounter, therefore were not passionate but confused and shocked about it. Probably half of the people who've seen one either don't know what it was they saw or deny that it was a bigfoot and don't want to use that word when talking about it due to the risk of ridicule. From an investigative standpoint those who were passionate about the subject before their sighting, are 100% absolutely sure it was a "bigfoot" they saw and wax poetic about it are the reports I give the most skeptical eye to.

That's been my experience with witnesses, anyway.

Just my two pennies.

Those damn pesky Europeans - what can you do eh?

True when it comes to those who have sightings, but as I said, when I use the term true romanticism, I’m talking about having a hunch (an impression that something might be the case) based on lore (knowledge passed down through tradition or anecdote) that leads to a passionate belief that the lore may in reality be based on fact, even though irrefutable evidence is still yet to be discovered. A true romantic is one who is intrigued by such lore, and feels that it may have its basis in fact and is lured into pursuit of the truth because the thought of this lore being real has an exciting and mysterious quality. It fascinates him or her. As long as one remains sensible about practical matters and does not purport unrealistic claims based solely on fantasy, foolishness and imaginations, his romantic motivation is a good thing. Every Bigfoot believer who has NOT had a sighting of his or her own IS A ROMANTIC in this sense of the word. Why? Because they are motivated by nothing more than lore (A story they read or heard) and a hunch and fascination that there may be substance to the tale.

That's all I'm trying to say.

DTK

There's a time and place for romanticism, but the field of sasquatchery is not one of them.

JMO

Have we ever ran a poll asking this question?

I'm absolutely sure you are right - I didn't give UFOs a second thought until one hovered above my school.

Now, before anyone accuses me otherwise, I'm not saying for a second that I think there is a UFO/Bigfoot connection, but I can easily imagine that people could go about their daily business, having never given bigfoot a moment's thought and have their life turned upside down by it.

I know it would absolutely drive me crazy. I would want to see a second one just to convince myself that I wasn't seeing things - not unlike my UFO - I won't be convinced about them until I see another, and then it will open up a whole new can of worms for me, because I would want to find out more about them.

I think ARSquatch is absolutely spot on - is it a question you ask witnesses? if so, how do you phrase the question?

I think of an interest in the subject as more of a curiosity than a romanticism. We may be saying the same thing, but to me romanticism denotes a belief or faith that the animals do exist where curiosity is merely a question of whether they exist with a normal amount of skepticism involved. that's just my opinion. We all have our own opinions.

I'd rather be skeptically curious than romantically passionate about it. At least in my opinion you don't run into as many blobsquatches in the woods that way.

Mountainlady,

On the contrary, romanticism is nessessary to some degree in sasquatchery, it's EXTREME ROMANTICISM (or lunacy) that is damaging. (See my above post)

DTK

I'm just not comfortable with the description of "romantic" being placed on people who have not had a sighting but do believe there is a creature out there.

I'm also not comfortable with the term in love with the idea of there being a creature out there.

I'm sorry, but that's much to "Mary Greenish" for my taste.



IMO, that's just painting people with too broad a brush. Do you put those people in the romantic catagory who have only seen tracks, or heard vocals? Or, are they in the non-romantic catagory because they have at least experienced that?

I also think that people are drawn to this subject by more than the thought of excitment and mystery. I think the curosity and want for knowledge of the unknown are bigger draws to the field. JMO

Here here.

As the misquoted Ayn Rand stated...



Reason is the antithema of romanticism in any form, regardless of how well concealed it may be. Reason, logic, skepticism, honesty, hard work, integrity, luck. Take your pick, they're all much needed to solve this mystery, and only the later of them all falls outside the true scope of what objectivism really is.

Actually, I like that term ARsquatch -- curiosity. That's probably a better word to use than romanticism in some ways. However, passion provokes pursuit. To be passionately romantic about the subject seems to imply more diligence and dedication than the word curiosity. To be curious is more casual sounding to me. Maybe it's just semantics, but the concept still rings true.

DTK

Despite everything I've experienced in my own work, heard from others, and invetigated, I am not a "believer". A "believer" relies on faith in the lack of irrefutable evidence, which serves only to erode credibility IMHO.

I guess that would suggest the existence of a new category of researcher. But why research if you don't believe something exists? To prove it dosen't exist?

DTK

I believe only because I have seen. I don't think squatch has super powers, or comes from another solar system or dimension. I guess that makes me a candidate for objectivism. But it somehow does my heart good to know they are out there, poking around in the mysterious, dark, nighttime wilderness. Especially when sitting around a campfire with a cup of coffee. I guess that makes me a romantic? Oh, I'm so confused!
BSF

Edit: spelling. Also, I think a little controlled romanticism is good for science.

There is no room for romance in science

BSF,

As an actual eyewitness there is no need for romanticism. You're not just curious about Bigfoot's existence. You know it exists. You're in a place many would love to be!

DTK

Tell that to Jane Goodall. I'm sure she would disagree with you.

The density of that statement is mind numbing.

Oh my god !!!!!!!

My girl friend just told me I was the most romantic guy in the entire world. What the heck did she mean by that !!!!!

I thought we were in love and had a future together, should I dump her before she dumps me ???? :help:

Has anyone been in this situation before ????

I need advice. And, please us small words ... this thread has made me dizzy.

Bigfootie

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you weren't out looking for a bigfoot when you saw one, right?

I think knowing they are out there is different from being romantic about it. To you it is a fact they exist because you've seen one.

I think I'm being redundant and I'm not trying to be. I think Jaylee summed it up best.

In other words, "elementary my dear Watson!"

What exactly is elementary? The idea that someone would be willing to investigate something without knowledge of its existance to begin with? Edison did, Einstein did, Bohr did, Pascal did, but apparently that's somethign you cannot begin to grasp or understand.

Perhaps what is elementary is your massive inability to grasp what true research is.

Nah, I was out destroying large tracts of prime, old-growth forest in the Sierras.

Guess I am not a romantic then. Phew! TY, Ars.
BSF

I guess that pretty much would mark you off as a possible tree hugger as well. Glad I could help

There has been such a negative "stigma" around the word "romantic" that people are afraid to use the word. This is derived from not understanding the full definition of the word. Romanticism has both a positive and negative meaning.

In the positive, it means as a noun = a subject that has an exciting and mysterious quality. As a verb it means to think or express something in an amorous, idealistic, or sentimental way. To think favorably toward something.

In the negative, used as an adjective it means = not sensible about practical matters; unrealistic, fantasy driven.

Used in the positive sense it is a good thing.

DTK

I don't think you're going to be able to change the stigma assigned to that word David. I think you're fighting an uphill battle no matter what the dictionary says. I appreciate the fact you're a non conformist trying to educate us all, but it's a "Don Quixotian" thing to do (and I mean that in the best possible light). I don't think you're going to change any minds.

And in the absence of science, what we have left are:

Romance,

Faith,

& BS.

Some on this forum choose to look at sasquatchery from a scientific outlook. And some of them are making slow progress (even in the absence of a carcass, field study of the creatures themselves, wading through the BS, etc.)

Some here aren't scientists (in fact, most aren't). They see this phenomenon with eyes developed through their life experiences. That includes the BS artists.

I come from a position of faith. Like a juror (without someone in a black robe telling me what I can and cannot consider), I've read many of the reports, seen what photos are out there, seen footprints myself that appeared to have been made by one of these creatures, and (without *proof*), have come to believe that these creatures exist.

That's all I have. Please don't try to take that away because I'm not a scientist.

Is there a "reasonable doubt"? You bet. So, I guess I'm still deliberating.

I sure wish the "DA" would get *proof*.

If the "scientists" dislike "believers" and "romantics", and want to get this case closed, perhaps they should get the goods.

Easier said than done. The sasquatch aren't cooperating.

And here I thought they were just being stubborn in my neck of the woods.

They play peek-a-boo here in Arkansas but they aren't posing for any pictures or letting us tear out any of their hair. Half of them are taping their toes together so we get funky three-toed tracks. It's enough to make ya wanna

Maybe you're right about not being able to change the stigma assigned to that word for those who are presently in the field, but I do believe what I'm saying is balanced and sound. I'm simply bouncing the philosophy of my mindset off of my peers at the moment. But I'm looking at this from the viewpoint of someone who wants to reach the masses of unbelievers who are skeptical or who have never had a sighting or an experience themselves. If I want to do that, I've got to start by reaching out to the romantic within them. The science minded seem to want to reach the science community. But it seems to me that we'd have much better success by reaching the general public. After all, it's the general public that have the Bigfoot encounters.

My thought is this, if we can somehow pique the interest of the common folk and dispel the fear of coming forward with their sightings and encounters, I believe we will have a much better chance of eventually turning up some solid and irrefutable evidence. Sure we'd have to weed through all the wackos to find the gold. But it's a numbers game. The more we reach, the better the chances of discovering that one golden lead.

It seems like sometimes we've got things backwards. We try to find the "smoking gun" in the PG footage or in the dermal ridges, or we go out and try to hunt the dang thing down ourselves. But if we could use the media (the internet, television and radio) to dispel the stigma that rests on the general populace, (and yes we'd have to use some Hollywood tactics) we would increase our chances of having someone come forward who can lead us to the creature we're seeking. The more romantics we produce (in the positive sense of the word) the more attentive the various individuals that make up our society will become. Leave the science to the investigators to employ later. First, inspire the populace with all the stories and questionable evidence we have available to us. Do it in an entertaining way (without exaggeration but with interesting information) and eventually we'll come across that farmer, that land owner, that hunter who has had repeated encounters but has been keeping his mouth shut for all these years.

To be successful we've got to spawn two armies. The romantics (in the positive sense) and the investigators to weed through the incredible stories to find the credible evidence.

Does that make sense to anybody?

DTK

Actually Huntster - you have made a judgement based on the evidence that you have obtained by your research.
You are not basing your judgement on nothing.
You have reasoned and come to a conclusion that satisfies you.
You are not telling anyone what they should believe in - what they should think - or how they should think it.
You ask questions to improve your knowledge and judging from your posts - you do not take things on faith at all.
You are not a romantic when it comes to this subject IMHO.
As for you being a romantic elsewhere - I'll pose that question to Mrs. Huntster one day.

I wonder how many skeptics you could change? The average citizen of society views bigfoot right up there with UFOs in believability and are pretty unshakable in that foundation unless presented with irrefutable proof. Impossible I guess not, but you might wind up with a black eye or two from those non believers trying to convert them to the positive romantic views.




You might have better luck if you just knew who it was in the general public who has already had an encounter, but they are already believers so what would be the point?



Common folk have a morbid interest in the bigfoot topic and UFOs and some of them even watch the documentaries and docu-dramas about them, but I'd wager most are not swayed from their non believing status once the show is over.




One of the best television programs out there is Legend Meets Science and I don't think it's done a lot to sway anyone's opinions. What would you do differently?



This information is largely available to them on the internet and some of the documentaries already. What would you do differently?



Unfortunately the incredible stories don't usually have any evidence in my experience. Those are the ones left on the cutting room floor by the investigators in total because they aren't credible.



I appreciate what you're trying to do but wonder how you are going to do it?

First of all, skeptics don't change overnight. For the skeptic, my goal would be using every available means to drop the seed in their mind. Even if they mock it and call it a bunch of bunk, the seed has been planted. Then, if they later happen to be among the privileged few who have some kind of sighting or encounter, they'll remember the program or website they ran across. This is a numbers game. In addition to the skeptics, by reaching as many people as possible with your most convincing witnesses, Bigfoot stories and evidence, you're bound to hit the small percentage that actually has had a sighting or encounter. Especially if you target States and regions (where sightings are abundant) with some kind of Bigfoot media blitz. (taking advantage of free publicity, press releases etc. as well as TV, Radio, internet and print media, direct mailings etc.) Can you tell that I've been extensively involved with marketing? lol.



That's who you're after. Like I said, it's not about converting them ARsquatch, it's about reaching multitudes with your message to find that farmer, that hunter, that property owner who just might be able to lead you to this elusive creature.



I agree. Unless, however, they later have an unexpected visitor in the night. They'll remember what they saw on TV etc. The seed has been planted.



Is LMS really one of the best? For the science community, yes. I know many are going to want to throw rotten eggs at me for saying this, (including Autumn Williams probably), but I believe Mysterious Encounters did more good making the general public aware of the possibility of Bigfoot's existence than LMS ever did or ever will. Sure there were unethical things that took place behind the scenes, but ME was aired on a station that reaches large numbers of hunters and fisherman. It especially dazzled the minds hundreds of thousands of 8 to 15 year olds (The emerging generation), it reached multiplied millions of common folks and still does through repeat airings, and while it may have disgusted the more die-hard BF believers, it entertained "Joe six pack." The many sincere witnesses and stories ME displayed probably made more people than we'll ever know reconsider their stand on Bigfoot. The seed has been planted and it will grow.



More ME type shows but much better quality, radio programs (Not spookyville stuff either), Internet Promotion, Advertisements, Direct Mailings, Magazine write ups etc. A PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGN.



Numbers, numbers, numbers. Out every 100 reports there are probably only two or three that are truly credible.



Super intense market saturation to reach or create romantics in every way possible, and using high investigatory standards to sift the wheat from the chaff. Then target the few credible witnesses and high activity areas until legitimate specimens are found. After that, it's all about approach tactics and scientific methods of observation and study. It's all in the numbers, baby. All in the numbers!

DTK

I freely admit to being in love with the idea of Sasquatch existence. I was in love with the idea before I ever heard or saw any evidence. Perhaps that makes me a romantic. If so, I don't see any harm in it as long as I don't let my fantasy influence my reality. DTK, I think a better word might be fascination, rather than romantic, though the two might be considered similar. IMHO, the fascination with the idea that such an incredible creature might exist is the fuel that drives most within the field of Bigfoot Research.


Edited to make sense...twice

I can already tell you what Mrs. Huntster would say to that:

"He's romantic sometimes; if I could just keep him from running around out there in the woods, maybe it would be more often!"

Ditto....I agree

Sounds about like what my wife would say, Huntster. I drive her crazy when I am dressed in a button-down collar shirt, blazer and tie, but after a day or two in the swamps she is appalled at my appearance. However, I can't just give up that part of me. This life I live as a suburban dwelling research chemist just doesn't seem as real to me as the cycle of life I witness in the forest.

Guess in some ways I am disillusioned with science as it is practiced today. Theories are spoken of as if they were fact, then years later proved as false. The perpetrators go on as if nothing happened, seemingly without loss of credibility. Their theory merely 'evolved' to an opposing 'truth'. Happens almost daily these days.

I think science is overflowing with romanticism and denial today. I am not down on true science, without which we would not know those things we really do know. For God's sake, if we don't KNOW it, and project that we do, we are a romantic (or worse).
My rant
bsf

If you can do all that you say DTK...more power to ya. Make it happen. More reports will hit the databases and maybe somebody will hit the motherlode. I've been working on my skeptic scofftic husband for four years now and he's still rock solid in the skeptic/scofftic camp. Nothing I can say will shake that immovable skepticism. On the other hand with his police background I think he'd make an excellent investigator.

To loosely quote the Frankenstein Monster -

"Grrrrrr...ROOOOOAR!...Romantics BAAAAAAAAAD!!!"

Pretty much how I feel on the subject...