Cryptozoology

In response to Ben Roesch's "On the Nature of Cryptozoology" I have to agree with his claim that cryptozoology is not a science, and should never be considered a science. In Roesch's article he states that cryptozoology is not a science because the evidence presented is all testimonial and eye witness, thus making it untestable and unrepeatable. Also, he states that you can not have falsifiability with cryptozoology, which totally goes against the rules of empirical sciences. I agree with all of this, but I do feel the cryptozoology has its place in the world. I don't believe in Bigfoot, I don't believe in aliens or UFO's, and I don't believe in the Lochness monster. I do however, feel that it is a good idea to have people looking for these "creatures" and anything that might "pop" up like this. Why? Well, if Bigfoot comes out of the forest and there is a cryptozoologist ready to study it and bring it in to a zoo or something, that would be more beneficial than nobody waiting for something to happen, and then it does.

Jersey Devil

In response to "The Jersey Devil of the Pine Barrens" in which we read for class, I have to say that this is a serious hoax. First off, anything of this proportion, and anything that looks like a flying dragon, would have been caught or killed by now. Also, with the population growth in New Jersey, I can't really see anything like that being able to hide anywhere, even in the woods, without being noticed and caught. I also cannot believe in a story that has several outakes on it. Many different people have many different views on the origin, the accounts of sightings and attacks, and the features of the Devil. If it was real, then there would only be one or two different stories behind it, in my opion at least. I did really enjoy the article because it is a fun story that is interesting and entertaining. Also, I have noticed that all profesional teams are named after something to do with their state or town that they represent. Milwaukee Brewers are named for all the breweries, Chicago Bulls and Bears because of the stock market, and so on. Now I understand where the NHL team, the New Jersey Devils, derived their name from. Pretty interesting!

Tools of a Skeptic

I was really interested in the article Stupid Skeptic Tricks written by DOwens6683 because it gave me an insight on some of the "tricks of the trade" if you will. Now in the article it goes into the explanation of techniques that skeptics use in arguments against others to help persuade them into submitting to the skeptic and thus winning the argument. Now I don't completely agree with all that the author has to say, or even believe all that they are stating because some of it seems a little cynical. I am not saying that the author is attacking skeptics, or that his argument is not valid, what I am saying, is that some of these methods, mainly one in particular, seems a little questionable.
The technique that I am referring to is listed as number four in the article and is titled "Stupid, Crazy Liars". Now I will admit, when I first read this I had a pretty good laugh over it because it seems out of place. Maybe I am not used to a conversation or argument with a skeptic since English 102 is the first time I have studied or encountered skepticism, but come on, slander as a argument technique? The first line of the explanation states "Anyone who reports anything which displeases the skeptic will be accused of incompetence, mental illness or dishonest". Now in my experience with arguments, you only reduce yourself to slander when the person you are arguing with is someone you don't respect or perhaps you are in a fight and not an argument. I do not really see two or more educated people debating over the validity of something and have the debate be reduced to slander because one of the arguers possibly made a seemingly invalid response. Maybe I just have not study skepticism enough yet, but it seems irrational. What do you guys think?

Welcome!

Welcome to my blog for English 102!