Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

In praise of cryptobiologists


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#16    ohio state buckeyes

ohio state buckeyes

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,563 posts
  • Joined:02 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:ohio

Posted 25 June 2011 - 01:09 PM

View Postevancj, on 25 June 2011 - 12:14 AM, said:

Who's saying they shouldn't look?





So believing anyone's story or the people whom sell books and videos about these mythical beasts is thinking for yourself?
Uh you seem to think they don't deserve respect that would give the impression they shouldn't look  :blink: I didn't say I believe everyone  :tu:  Yes reading books and learning about a subject and having you own thoughts on it is thinking for yourself.


#17    evancj

evancj

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,777 posts
  • Joined:07 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern, UT

Posted 25 June 2011 - 03:38 PM

View Postohio state buckeyes, on 25 June 2011 - 01:09 PM, said:

Uh you seem to think they don't deserve respect that would give the impression they shouldn't look  :blink:


Nope you have it all wrong.

While I may not respect what they do, how they do it, or their silly assumptions, I do respect their right to do it.


View Postohio state buckeyes, on 25 June 2011 - 01:09 PM, said:

I didn't say I believe everyone  :tu:  Yes reading books and learning about a subject and having you own thoughts on it is thinking for yourself.


Good on ya buckeye. :tu: As long as you feel comfortable with your beliefs more power to ya.

However saying someone isn't thinking for themselves because they question your beliefs, or don't believe as you do seems a bit hypocritical. You are basically telling me I need to think like you do, which isn't exactly thinking for myself is it.


#18    NatureBoff

NatureBoff

    SandersonHapgood

  • Banned
  • 3,491 posts
  • Joined:23 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 26 June 2011 - 11:37 AM

Good post and thanks for sharing. It's the same in all walks of science now-a-days more than ever. It's almost a religious like zeal which has taken over from the old world view. For what it's worth I've copied over a quote from a physics competition which has exactly the same problems:

Quote

Professionals are constrained to "color within the lines". They will ignore anomalies that threaten their current theories until, as John says, they reach "the point where the big reset button gets pushed by anomalies too large to be patched over and a new platform has to be constructed."

Therefore I focus on the anomalies as the only valid indicator of new physics and test of new theories of physics. But going outside the established theories one guarantees being ignored. Nevertheless, FQXi provides a wonderful platform for recording what I called "the audit trail".

Eckard described the situation as a variant on the well known three apes as follows: "We do not see a solution, we did not hear that someone else does so, and we must by no means say this, in order not to lose our funding."

Anyone who believes that they have a worthwhile theory should apply the theory to currently known anomalies in physics, that is, real physics that does not fit into current theory. If the anomalies are explained by your theory, then I suggest you ignore 'expert opinion' and pursue your theory. Feynman in his Nobel lecture: "since they didn't get a satisfactory answer to the problem I wanted to solve, I don't have to pay a lot of attention to what they did do."

They haven't solved the anomalies. See if you can.

But don't expect the 'professionals' to pay attention. Physics is a giant industrial-political-establishment with hundreds of thousands earning a nice living within its boundaries. It's not going to change just because you may have a better idea. It's foolish to think otherwise. 'Non-professionals' are in it for love, not money, and the freedom that this allows will only mean frustration if you think that the physics industry should turn on a dime and follow you. That's delusional.

Edwin Eugene Klingman


The object, known by the locals as "Bicho Voador" (Flying Animal), or "Bicho Sugador" (Sucking Animal), has the shape of a rounded ship and attacks people in isolation.

#19    bunji

bunji

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 182 posts
  • Joined:07 Jan 2011

Posted 26 June 2011 - 12:06 PM

some of these guys actually take cryptozoology seriously. their not all ass hats stomping through the woods doing sasquatch howls. and thats where the problem lies there is so many crazies and attention seekers out there that blow things out of proportion and create hoaxes. that it makes it hard for the people who seriously are trying to find the truth


#20    Doctor_Strangelove

Doctor_Strangelove

    Nazi Scientist

  • Member
  • 2,616 posts
  • Joined:28 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Halifax, Nova Scotia

  • Mein Führer! I can walk!

Posted 26 June 2011 - 08:39 PM

View Postbunji, on 26 June 2011 - 12:06 PM, said:

some of these guys actually take cryptozoology seriously. their not all ass hats stomping through the woods doing sasquatch howls. and thats where the problem lies there is so many crazies and attention seekers out there that blow things out of proportion and create hoaxes. that it makes it hard for the people who seriously are trying to find the truth
How does one take cryptozoology seriously?

"Isn't it weird when users quote themselves in their own signatures?"-Doctor_Strangelove

#21    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,524 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 June 2011 - 11:17 PM

View PostDoctor_Strangelove, on 26 June 2011 - 08:39 PM, said:

How does one take cryptozoology seriously?

It may sound flippant, but it is a valid question.  How does one distinguish between "serious" cryptozoologists and...not sure what to call them..."non-serious" ones?


#22    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,469 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 June 2011 - 12:14 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 26 June 2011 - 11:17 PM, said:

It may sound flippant, but it is a valid question.  How does one distinguish between "serious" cryptozoologists and...not sure what to call them..."non-serious" ones?

A valid point, especially considering that "cryptozoology" is a comparatively recent term that has no standing as an actual branch of the sciences.

.


#23    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 19,052 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 27 June 2011 - 12:33 AM

View PostDoctor_Strangelove, on 24 June 2011 - 12:55 AM, said:

The issue with attempting to view cryptozoology as a worthy scientific endeavour is it really isn't. While yes, there are plenty of species left undiscovered in rainforests and oceans across the world, they are left so because they have no been seen by humans ever. They are the species that live in uninhabitable parts of the world, not the kind who walk around and shake people's trailers. And these undiscovered species aren't being sought after by cryptozoologists, when they do turn up it is to real zoologists and biologists. Cryptozoology is only interested in looking for implausible creatures who have no niche in the ecosystems they are reported in. Because of that, cryptozoology is a hobby reserved for the odd few who leave meat traps and blast animal noises into woods in hopes of attracting giant man apes.

Until cryptozoology gets real results and doesn't solely go after what the rest of science views as biologically impossible, cryptozoologists will not gain any respect from me.
I think mostly Strangelove is right in that most "Cryptobiologists" are looking for fame or fortune, either as a blogger, writer, TV personnality, or otherwise are hobbiests who think it is fun. If I was to go Honestly looking for Bigfoot or a jackalope, or a hodag, or the hoop snake, I'd get a biology background first, then knowing what is possible and impossible, gather evidence. I'd call myself a biologist, just as Meldrum does, and go about my Research quietly and thuroughly. Cryptozoologists that call themselves cryptozoologists are the ones you need to watchout for.

Edited by DieChecker, 27 June 2011 - 12:34 AM.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#24    modas

modas

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 85 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ireland

  • Any idiot with a good memory can pass an exam but not every genius wins a Nobel prize.

Posted 27 June 2011 - 08:34 PM

Quote

Why should they be praised or respected?

Have you seen finding bigfoot?:lol: :lol: :lol: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: What a joke.

Shouldn't they have to prove their worth just like the rest of us? Not one of them has ever found a damn thing, including the animals mentioned in the OP.
kangoro first seen by peple sayd to be stud up like people had two heads vhich lookedlike dears with no horns and they jumped like frogs and no body beleved those people and this explains not just how crazy people can tell about unknown animals but it explains that people can find cryptids.


#25    evancj

evancj

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,777 posts
  • Joined:07 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern, UT

Posted 27 June 2011 - 10:39 PM

View Postmodas, on 27 June 2011 - 08:34 PM, said:

kangoro first seen by peple sayd to be stud up like people had two heads vhich lookedlike dears with no horns and they jumped like frogs and no body beleved those people and this explains not just how crazy people can tell about unknown animals but it explains that people can find cryptids.

Since the concept of cryptozoology did not exist when kangaroos were first described by Europeans it would have been impossible for a cryptozoologist to have made that discovery.


#26    Doctor_Strangelove

Doctor_Strangelove

    Nazi Scientist

  • Member
  • 2,616 posts
  • Joined:28 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Halifax, Nova Scotia

  • Mein Führer! I can walk!

Posted 27 June 2011 - 10:51 PM

View Postmodas, on 27 June 2011 - 08:34 PM, said:

kangoro first seen by peple sayd to be stud up like people had two heads vhich lookedlike dears with no horns and they jumped like frogs and no body beleved those people and this explains not just how crazy people can tell about unknown animals but it explains that people can find cryptids.
Spoiler


"Isn't it weird when users quote themselves in their own signatures?"-Doctor_Strangelove

#27    Carnivorous Entity

Carnivorous Entity

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 209 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bellevue, Washington

  • The year is 2027...

Posted 28 June 2011 - 09:29 PM

View Postevancj, on 24 June 2011 - 01:59 AM, said:

There is not one animal in this article that is even close to a cyrptid. They are what they are, previously unknown species to science. Show me bigfoot or nessie and I will look at cryptozoology in a new light.

I think the person who wrote this article took a few to many liberties with the truth. Perhaps you should not take everything you read at face value.
Well what's quantifying a cryptid for you? People who like to discount cryptozoology say that pretty much any species discovered fairly recently weren't cryptids. Why, though? Take the Okapi. There were myths surrounding it. For something to be a cryptid it doesn't necessarily have to be an acid-spitting death worm or a giant ape, does it now? If a biologist were to confirm a new species that had folklore or sightings, then that would make it a cryptid, would it not? While a lot of 'cryptozoologists' who spend their days looking around for a sasquatch in the backyard can hardly be called scientists in any manner, can we not call the biologists who spend a significant amount of time looking for new species something akin to a cryptozoologist?

Edited by Carnivorous Entity, 28 June 2011 - 09:32 PM.

Member of UM since 2005 on a lost account.

#28    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,524 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 28 June 2011 - 10:53 PM

View PostCarnivorous Entity, on 28 June 2011 - 09:29 PM, said:

Well what's quantifying a cryptid for you? People who like to discount cryptozoology say that pretty much any species discovered fairly recently weren't cryptids. Why, though? Take the Okapi. There were myths surrounding it. For something to be a cryptid it doesn't necessarily have to be an acid-spitting death worm or a giant ape, does it now? If a biologist were to confirm a new species that had folklore or sightings, then that would make it a cryptid, would it not?

No, it would not.  Cryptids are not simply "unknown" animals.  Cryptids are "hidden" animals.  As in they are not just hidden from sight, but from pretty much all other means of detection.  

Cryptozoology is generally used to refer to the study of two sorts of  creature: creatures that are incompatible with the environment, and  creatures that are out of place and/or time.

The second type of cryptid is not really such a mystery, with the  increased access of travel and the unfortunate human predilection of  bringing home strange animals, getting bored of them, and releasing them  into the wild.

It is the first type of cryptid that are the most popular.  Nessie,  Bigfoot, et al, these are all creatures that live in defiance of the  laws of nature other animals live at.  For instance, for all the lakes  that seem to have a monster in them, there is nothing to indicate any  sort of migration pattern, any sort of biological lineage, or nothing  else that we would expect to see in an environment.  It's almost like  some gigantic overseer with a salt shaker full of crytids sprinkled them  liberally all over the world.  The reason these animals are "hidden" is  not merely because they cannot be seen (or, apparently, photographed),  but because they are hidden at all levels, appearing completely  invisible to their environment.  Unlike any other animal, these cryptids  could be removed from their environment, and absolutely nothing would  change.


#29    Carnivorous Entity

Carnivorous Entity

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 209 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bellevue, Washington

  • The year is 2027...

Posted 28 June 2011 - 11:58 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 28 June 2011 - 10:53 PM, said:

No, it would not.  Cryptids are not simply "unknown" animals.  Cryptids are "hidden" animals.  As in they are not just hidden from sight, but from pretty much all other means of detection.  

Cryptozoology is generally used to refer to the study of two sorts of  creature: creatures that are incompatible with the environment, and  creatures that are out of place and/or time.

The second type of cryptid is not really such a mystery, with the  increased access of travel and the unfortunate human predilection of  bringing home strange animals, getting bored of them, and releasing them  into the wild.

It is the first type of cryptid that are the most popular.  Nessie,  Bigfoot, et al, these are all creatures that live in defiance of the  laws of nature other animals live at.  For instance, for all the lakes  that seem to have a monster in them, there is nothing to indicate any  sort of migration pattern, any sort of biological lineage, or nothing  else that we would expect to see in an environment.  It's almost like  some gigantic overseer with a salt shaker full of crytids sprinkled them  liberally all over the world.  The reason these animals are "hidden" is  not merely because they cannot be seen (or, apparently, photographed),  but because they are hidden at all levels, appearing completely  invisible to their environment.  Unlike any other animal, these cryptids  could be removed from their environment, and absolutely nothing would  change.
Noted. You make a strong point, I don't really entertain the idea of the sasquatche and n/t/che/whatever-essies. The type of stuff I take stock in wouldn't be considered cryptids by the literal definition, I suppose.

Member of UM since 2005 on a lost account.

#30    evancj

evancj

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,777 posts
  • Joined:07 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern, UT

Posted 29 June 2011 - 12:45 AM

View PostCarnivorous Entity, on 28 June 2011 - 09:29 PM, said:

Well what's quantifying a cryptid for you? People who like to discount cryptozoology say that pretty much any species discovered fairly recently weren't cryptids. Why, though? Take the Okapi. There were myths surrounding it.


I have struggled with this very same question Mr. Entity for a multitude of reasons.

I think the main reason is because I have a general biology degree (I am not a biologist and never have been). Also because the term is relatively a new concept, and a very loosely defined one, I have a hard time accepting it as valid. There seems not to be a consensus for the meaning of the term, not even among so-called cryptozoologists.

For example I can look up the definition of zoology, biology, or physics and get the same definition for each in every dictionary that I look at. On the other hand when I look up cyrptozoology I can find several definitions with the only common theme being "unsubstantiated existence" or the literal Greek translation of the word "the study of hidden animals".

Unsubstantiated means - unsupported by other evidence. We could also use the following related words to describe cryptozoology, or cryptids; unconfirmed, unproven, speculative, questionable, spurious, groundless, open to question, uncorroborated, conjectural, unestablished, and unattested. Not exactly glowing references for the purported subject of study, or a supposed scientific discipline.

Hidden animals? Not very helpful or descriptive. Hidden animals could describe the majority of all species on this earth. Most animals avoid being killed or eaten by staying hidden.

I also find the term a bit discriminatory and dismissive of non-westerners and their knowledge of their environments. Every animal in the OP article (with maybe the exception of the frog) was known to the locals in the areas they were found. Cryptozoology conveniently ignores this fact. If a Kalahari bushman came to North America and saw a moose would that make the moose a cryptozoological discovery? I think the cryptozoologist would hypocritically inform him that he was wrong because we (westerners) have known about the moose forever.

I think aquatis1 came up with the best definition for a cryptid that I have ever heard;

Quote

It is the first type of cryptid that are the most popular. Nessie, Bigfoot, et al, these are all creatures that live in defiance of the laws of nature other animals live at. For instance, for all the lakes that seem to have a monster in them, there is nothing to indicate any sort of migration pattern, any sort of biological lineage, or nothing else that we would expect to see in an environment. It's almost like some gigantic overseer with a salt shaker full of crytids sprinkled them liberally all over the world. The reason these animals are "hidden" is not merely because they cannot be seen (or, apparently, photographed), but because they are hidden at all levels, appearing completely invisible to their environment. Unlike any other animal, these cryptids could be removed from their environment, and absolutely nothing would change.


This is clear concise and upfront. A definition that I can wrap my head around rather than the vague, interpenetrate as you wish suggestion that describes cryptids.


View PostCarnivorous Entity, on 28 June 2011 - 09:29 PM, said:

For something to be a cryptid it doesn't necessarily have to be an acid-spitting death worm or a giant ape, does it now?


Well according to the above definition those are perfect cryptid candidates.


View PostCarnivorous Entity, on 28 June 2011 - 09:29 PM, said:

If a biologist were to confirm a new species that had folklore or sightings, then that would make it a cryptid, would it not?


No it would make it a new species to science. Just like the gorilla, kamoto dragon, panda, Okapi, etc. etc. etc.


View PostCarnivorous Entity, on 28 June 2011 - 09:29 PM, said:

While a lot of 'cryptozoologists' who spend their days looking around for a sasquatch in the backyard can hardly be called scientists in any manner, can we not call the biologists who spend a significant amount of time looking for new species something akin to a cryptozoologist?


I think that would be an insult to someone whom spent years getting their biology degree. Anyone can claim they are cryptozoologist. Hell even my dog could be a cryptozoologist he is smarter than most of them, and he can always find a hidden animal with no problems. But not many of us can say we put in the time effort and discipline it takes to be a real bonafide biologist.

Cryptozoology has no discipline, rules or standards, its a free-fraul to see who can get the next TV show, or make the most money from books, field trips, videos, photos, and t-shirts.

Edited by evancj, 29 June 2011 - 01:01 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users