[brighter2morrow]

>But anti-belief is scientific if the belief for something requires a complete overturning of scientific principles. It's not just an absence of evidence for something. It isn't "open minded" to say "could be..." to Bigfoot, Nessie, or the like -- it's closed minded because to even consider the idea seriously is to think that ecologists and population geneticists have no idea what the minimum habitat of a large animal is or of the minimum viable population size is.

That doesn't make sense. What you're saying is that "It's closed minded not to have blind faith in a faceless group of people who get to dictate what you can and cannot say."

[jhbadger]

No. No "blind faith" needed. Non-scientists can, and some do, learn about fields that interest them, sometimes even to a level that lets them participate in the scientific process. There have been new species of insects and new asteroids discovered by amateurs, for example. But to do so, they have to understand where and what types of animal or object are there for the discovery.

[brighter2morrow]

It's blind faith if its only presentation is snarky commentary.