Wild Thing: Why We Want to Believe
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on December 5th, 2018
Bigfoot researchers remain optimistic that Sasquatch is out there; that the creature will one day be found. Why? Why do people continue to believe? We’ll talk to professional skeptic Michael Shermer about the nature of belief. And we’ll look at why—even for those who think Bigfoot is a complete myth—the idea of Bigfoot holds so much appeal. What makes us so fascinated by this creature? Why do we want so badly to believe that it’s out there?
Website
Facebook
Wild Thing store
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
It’s not about wanting to believe Bigfoot is out there.
Between the steady number of accounts each year, the tracks, and the other secondary evidence, it’s enough to sway me. Bigfoot is out there.
This whole idea of “belief” is a scoftic approach. Believing relegates Bigfoot into the same category as unicorns and faeries. This whole nonsense of “do you believe in Bigfoot” sidetracks us from the real questions: what is it really, and what is its nature, and how do we make contact with it.
Even though Bigfoot isn’t “provable” to everyone categorically (because we don’t have body to put on exhibit inside a museum), doesn’t mean it’s not out there. And for those who need a body for proof, it’s a waste of time arguing with them.
People make their own determinations based off of the same information. I’m not here to sway anyone else–I’m here to investigate and see if I can cross paths with it at some point–to make a determination of what I think it is.
Please don’t use lame, made-up insults like “scoftic”; they make you look like you’re still in middle school. (Or, I suppose, on the staff of any of today’s prominent politicians, which is perhaps worse. Let’s just say that in 200 years, the political debates we are currently having will not be admired and respected the way the debates between the Federalists and Antifederalists still are.)
I mean that, though. Back in middle school, I remember inventing the word “Khomeiniacs” for Iranians. Maybe that was witty in 7th grade, but I would cringe to hear a term like that coming from an adult. Such a word in a good argument is like nose art on a limousine; it’s not just unnecessary, it actually lessens the effect.
Let me use another analogy. Suppose you brag about how great your grilled steaks are. I’ve never eaten your steaks, but it’s a plausible claim. Then one day I drop by your house and find you in the middle of supper: prime rib, DRENCHED IN KETCHUP. The presence of the ketchup would make me immediately doubt your claims to be a great steak cook.
A strong and eloquent argument is like prime rib. Don’t cover it in ketchup.
It is ironic that Fhqwhgads uses ad hominem attacks against Springheeledjack to protest Jack’s alleged uncouth choice of language.
I did not think Jack’s comments were at all inappropriate, excessive, or clumsily expressed. He is not shy about his opinions, to be sure, but I’d rather someone take a position and provide a justification for it, than equivocate. Gad’s culinary analogy was bizarrely inapposite.
I personally am a fan of the term “scoftic.” It is a sensible contraction of “scoff” and “skeptic” and so accurately describes the significant majority of those who dismiss the possible existence of cryptids and other unexplained phenomenon without ever learning anything about the topic.