Restating my argument, people have seen real unususal seemingly fictional creaturs [closed]

Question

NOBODY SHOULD EDIT MY ARGUMENT BECAUSE THEY DONT REPRESENT IT CORRECTLY Reconsidering Unusual Creature Sightings: A Rational Perspective

It is important to reconsider the phenomenon of reported sightings of unusual creatures, as there exists a tendency to dismiss these accounts outright as either fabrications or the result of mental distortions. However, a more nuanced examination reveals that the prevalent explanations, such as pareidolia and misinterpretations, may not comprehensively account for the entirety of such instances.

The premise that most individuals asserting these sightings are neither irrational nor deceitful is foundational. Casting doubt on the sanity or credibility of all such witnesses overlooks the possibility that genuine experiences are being conveyed. This acknowledgment underscores the need to examine these accounts in a more open-minded light.

Historical records provide evidence that humans have consistently reported encounters with unusual creatures over time. While this alone cannot definitively substantiate their existence, it indicates that these experiences are a recurring facet of human perception and consciousness. Consequently, attributing all such accounts to mere delusion becomes a simplistic approach that disregards the complexity of this phenomenon. On top of this, these things that people claim to see, can't be considered extraordinary in a way that requires doubt to exist, its extraordinariness in its unusualness, but technically the chances of them existing are high as we know shapes exist, we know beings have shapes, we know the ones that people have reported can do the things other beings have done

The contention that reported sightings align with tangible reality is another crucial facet. It is undeniable that humans generally perceive genuine objects in their surroundings. Trees, animals, and various forms of life are regularly seen and validated. This suggests that while instances of misinterpretation and misperception exist, they do not account for the entirety of these encounters.

Addressing the explanations provided for such sightings is equally important. While factors like pareidolia and misinterpretation are valid cognitive processes, they are not universally applicable to all cases. In many instances, these explanations do not satisfactorily explain the depth and consistency of the described encounters. This is due to the fact that most people who have experienced things which skew your perception don't ususally experience them in most cases when it comes to sigthings, meaning most things people see aren't skewed by their perception in a way that produces an image that radically deviates from what is actually there. An argument solely grounded in these explanations overlooks the broader context of human sensory experience and perceptual accuracy.

Categorizing these observed beings as exclusively fictitious due to their divergence from the known is a shortsighted perspective. Such beings belong to a category of the unfamiliar, which does not inherently negate their existence. Being different in appearance does not intrinsically signify non-existence; rather, it challenges us to explore the boundaries of what we understand as possible.

It is rational to consider that the descriptions provided by individuals might not be entirely unfounded. While these creatures may not conform to conventional understanding, dismissing them outright without comprehensive investigation limits our understanding of the diverse nature of existence.

In conclusion, a more rational approach requires that we resist hastily rejecting the accounts of those who claim to have witnessed unusual creatures. Recognizing the limitations of conventional explanations and acknowledging the complexity of human perception paves the way for a more inclusive examination of these encounters. By doing so, we embark on a journey to unveil the truths hidden within the uncharted territories of our shared experiences.

Answer 1

All experience is interpreted. Normally when we have an experience our minds quickly interpret it in terms of familiar, ordinary actions and things: tables, chairs, animals, people, walking, typing... Sometimes our minds have difficulty and reach for more outré interpretations. That's adaptive: in low-information environments it's often safer to organize experiences along imaginary lines than to ignore experiences that might signal a hidden threat. So sometimes when people claim to see UFOs, bigfoot, or fairy lights their minds are merely misinterpreting the experience of some more commonplace event.

Religious/spiritual experiences are different in nature. I mean, when Moses came down the mountain he didn't just say: "Dudes! I saw this weird burning bush and I think it was God!", like he was talking about bigfoot. He came down the mountain (a bunch of times, actually), with religious laws that ostensibly came from God, and the whole thing about seeing a burning bush was supportive evidence, not the main point of the story. we are inclined to judge the merits of the law, irregardless of the merits of the experience.

The thing people tend to discount is that internal events are also experienced. Moments of passion or ecstasy, of insight or understanding, of awakening, etc, are themselves experiences that need interpretation. Moments of transport like this can be interpreted exogenously but what becomes important is not the experience itself, but the fruits of the experience. So if an angel appears and tells someone how to heal the world (or alternately a demon appears and tells someone to murder their neighbors), one can interpret it religiously or psychiatrically as one chooses, but what matters is what that someone does. Seeing an angel/demon isn't mere cryptozoology; it has a moral component, and the moral aspect is what people use to validate the interpretation.

Answer 2

the claim that they CAN’T possibly exist

Few are saying a centaur can't possibly exist. They are saying the person didn't see a centaur which exists. Not because centaurs can't possibly exist, but because the explanation that there was a centaur is seen as weak and/or a better explanation can be given.

We have more history than a few thousand sightings over just as many millennia to more fully weigh the centaur issue. Categorically, explanations which appeal to supernatural existence have declined. The shift in explanations away from supernatural gods is seen in Ancient Greece for example. The two tunnels forming the Tunnel of Eupalinos met at the middle because of geometry, not a god.

Specific questions like does a centaur exist are like the meeting of the two tunnels. You say every day, we sight other similar beings, and that centaurs aren't extraordinary. Great, exactly the reason to turn away from the supernatural and toward "science" to seek explanations.

I suspect you do this because you know the same overarching history of supernatural explanations not being sought in many cases. So then rely on "science" here too because it has otherwise answered similar questions. And science says centaurs probably have never existed, not they can't ever exist.

Answer 3

You claim that most people aren't crazy or liars. But human perception and memory are flawed. Mistaken observations throughout history show we often see things inaccurately. Also saying "I saw something" is NOT a proof regardless ho sane or honest you are. In evidence based thinking we are first interested in a solid evidence. Not with a psychological assessment. So your premise "he is not a liar" isn't worth anything.

Next you assert some fantastical reports are later explained as real, but mundane things. That may be true on occasion. But you can't conclude all such reports are therefore credible without examining the quality of evidence.

You then suggest these reports should be assumed valid observations because they are frequent. Frequency alone does not warrant credulity! Dramatic claims require rigorous verification.

Finally, you argue it's rational to interpret supernatural reports as mundane observations until disproven. But the default should be skepticism of anecdotal claims lacking solid supporting evidence and theories. You have the burden of proof backwards.

So basically you commit multiple logical fallacies. You wrongly equate frequency with veracity, ignore the flawed nature of human perception, try to base your "proof" that people are not all liars, fail to consider quality of evidence, and place the burden of disproof on skeptics rather than those making dubious claims.