[Agent. Mulder]

evancj, on 06 November 2009 - 01:12 AM, said:

I agree that religion has no place in this conversation but it seems that some of your fellow believers see the correlation between cryptids and god.

I disagree that there is any (even half way descent) evidence to support any cryptid. I also disagree that the thylacine is or ever will be a cryptid. It is nothing more than a species considered to be extinct.

but it is. people still claim to be having run ins, with an 'extinct' animal. thus its a cryptid now.

[DieChecker]

evancj, on 04 November 2009 - 08:37 PM, said:

I hope you don't think that's my point. I don't think you are stupid at all.

psyche101, on 05 November 2009 - 04:49 PM, said:

If I can add weight to this statement, I too feel you are at the other end of that scale Diechecker. I too do not think you are stupid to chase the 1%, just curious. The term stupid does not apply where you are concerned. I apologize if that is the impression you have received.

Ha! I was not taking it personally, just making a general statement. I greatly respect the intellegence and view of both of you also. No hard feelings with me. What would be the point?

To use one of Psyches posted pics....

Attached File(s)

•  Bed.png (13.77K)
  Number of downloads: 7

[shinkyo00]

evancj, on 09 February 2008 - 01:53 PM, said:

<b>Belief in one cryptid requires belief in all cryptids.</b>

I would argue that if you believe in one cryptid then you have to believe in all of them.

The evidence (or lack there of) believers use to support their conviction that these animals exist is virtually the same for all the major cryptids.

1. Shaky/burly film and photos.
2. Un-confirmable and often questionable eyewitness accounts.
3. Old outdated myths and legends.
4. The dismissal of; proven hoaxes, the lack of physical evidence, and the discounting of mainstream science that overwhelmingly refutes the existence of these ephemeral creatures.

I am curious to know, based on the criteria above, it would seem to me that if you believe in big foot (for example), then you would also have to believe Nessie, and all other cryptids, because they all present the same exact evidence.

So my question is; do all believers in cryptids believe in all cryptids? If not why?

Thanks for your input.

I just signed up on this forum and I like the atmosphere here. Very conductive to good debates unlike some other forums without any hint of civility at all.

That aside, I think this is a very interesting question.

1) Shaky and blurry media does not mean uniformity of information across all cryptid types. Suppose you had a close up tape of a cryptid that was very easily recognizable either due to environmental conditions or inherent biological attributes. Existing technologies could enhance the tape to confirm what was suspected to be the cryptid's identity at first glance. Therefore it has to be judged on a case by case basis as shakiness and blurriness do not constitute invalidity so far as evidence goes.

2) On what grounds are eyewitness accounts questionable? True, they may never be confirmed in some cases, especially where accounts differ. Suppose now that a reputable supreme justice who has no reason to lie reports seeing an animal resembling what is commonly known as "x" cryptid. Do we now classify this account as that of a cryptid or of a known animal? Notice that an allegation like this one points to the possibility of either cryptid "x" or known animal "y" that resembles the cryptid "x", or both. Because of a lack of positive allegation with regards to sighting a cryptid, this account isn't questionable at all because the nature of the allegation is not questionable (i.e. something exists, probably factually as told by the man, though the only description he could give is an object resemblance to a cryptid). So the concluding point is that, due to the plethora of reasons for which eyewitness accounts can be questionable, one cannot assume that the accounts are equally invalid just as one cannot assume that the accounts are equally valid.

3) Believers of these with any rationality (and intelligence) will likely probe the historical plausibility of such legends and myths. Some common sense might help too. For example, if "x" demonic creature really did terrorize a certain village, it is highly unlikely that tales of such a creature are told liberally and especially not for the purpose of scaring children to sleep. That would be counterproductive and also has the effect of crying wolf. This is unless, of course, the creature existed too long ago, which means it is now extinct. In this case, historical data is even more important as there might be documentation on this so again, it comes down to seeing past the first layer of information and digging up the relevant links. Again, case by case judgement is key. Of course cold logical analysis helps too.

4) Uncovered hoaxes only show that the alleged instances were hoaxed. Also, it ought to carry a probability weighting such that in the grand scheme of things, the attitude towards the cryptids in question should be adjusted accordingly to reflect the likelihood vs unlikelihood of the existence of such a cryptid. Otherwise, a hoax is just one single instance. It cannot account for all instances.

Regarding lack of evidence, all I can say is that it's already been said before. You cannot prove that something does not exist. Negative existence cannot be proven.

As far as media refutation goes, I personally prefer to understand them to mean "So far, with our limited resources (funding), a full scale definitive search is not possible. Therefore as far as practicality goes, and of course with the full backing of our biologists and statisticians and various other experts with training in the hard sciences, we have not turned out a positive result and therefore conclude that after doing what we could, and factoring in our ability level regarding the situation, it is improbable for our quarry to exist."

An important point to note regarding 4) is that the media will report further evidence even if something has been refuted. First, it's in their nature to report new developments regardless of the result of these developments. Second, the media needs to make money so if there's further coverage then that means a rise in viewership. Ideally the media would like to have a teleporting cryptid that ate a whole whale a meal yet gave birth to a new species after said meal.

Concluding statement: It appears most if not all criteria carry discrepancies within themselves across different cryptids. This calls for case by case screening and evaluation. Therefore belief in one cryptid does not necessarily imply obligation to believe in another.

[Chupacabra of Valhalla]

Undeadskeptic, on 09 February 2008 - 08:19 PM, said:

What a moronic argument and a waste of my time.

For once, I have to agree with you, bud. Though it took a break of almost 6 months to do so, but I have to agree. The logic is similar to: I dislike this book, so I dislike every book ever written. It makes no sense. What you COULD say is most cryptozoological evidence is flimsy at best, the emphasis on the "most"; some of the evidence put forward cannot simply be declared a fake. Much like the democratic right to a fair trial, evidence must be viewed by an unbiased populace, specifically one with little knowledge in the paranormal.

Anyway, bogus logic. I'm taking a degree in philosophy, don't try and outwit me. You can if you want to, but I'm much more educated then when I left. And I have a paranormal radio show too. Burn baby burn, crypto inferno!

[evancj]

shinkyo00, on 14 November 2009 - 01:57 AM, said:

I just signed up on this forum and I like the atmosphere here. Very conductive to good debates unlike some other forums without any hint of civility at all.

That aside, I think this is a very interesting question.

1) Shaky and blurry media does not mean uniformity of information across all cryptid types. Suppose you had a close up tape of a cryptid that was very easily recognizable either due to environmental conditions or inherent biological attributes. Existing technologies could enhance the tape to confirm what was suspected to be the cryptid's identity at first glance. Therefore it has to be judged on a case by case basis as shakiness and blurriness do not constitute invalidity so far as evidence goes.

2) On what grounds are eyewitness accounts questionable? True, they may never be confirmed in some cases, especially where accounts differ. Suppose now that a reputable supreme justice who has no reason to lie reports seeing an animal resembling what is commonly known as "x" cryptid. Do we now classify this account as that of a cryptid or of a known animal? Notice that an allegation like this one points to the possibility of either cryptid "x" or known animal "y" that resembles the cryptid "x", or both. Because of a lack of positive allegation with regards to sighting a cryptid, this account isn't questionable at all because the nature of the allegation is not questionable (i.e. something exists, probably factually as told by the man, though the only description he could give is an object resemblance to a cryptid). So the concluding point is that, due to the plethora of reasons for which eyewitness accounts can be questionable, one cannot assume that the accounts are equally invalid just as one cannot assume that the accounts are equally valid.

3) Believers of these with any rationality (and intelligence) will likely probe the historical plausibility of such legends and myths. Some common sense might help too. For example, if "x" demonic creature really did terrorize a certain village, it is highly unlikely that tales of such a creature are told liberally and especially not for the purpose of scaring children to sleep. That would be counterproductive and also has the effect of crying wolf. This is unless, of course, the creature existed too long ago, which means it is now extinct. In this case, historical data is even more important as there might be documentation on this so again, it comes down to seeing past the first layer of information and digging up the relevant links. Again, case by case judgement is key. Of course cold logical analysis helps too.

4) Uncovered hoaxes only show that the alleged instances were hoaxed. Also, it ought to carry a probability weighting such that in the grand scheme of things, the attitude towards the cryptids in question should be adjusted accordingly to reflect the likelihood vs unlikelihood of the existence of such a cryptid. Otherwise, a hoax is just one single instance. It cannot account for all instances.

Regarding lack of evidence, all I can say is that it's already been said before. You cannot prove that something does not exist. Negative existence cannot be proven.

As far as media refutation goes, I personally prefer to understand them to mean "So far, with our limited resources (funding), a full scale definitive search is not possible. Therefore as far as practicality goes, and of course with the full backing of our biologists and statisticians and various other experts with training in the hard sciences, we have not turned out a positive result and therefore conclude that after doing what we could, and factoring in our ability level regarding the situation, it is improbable for our quarry to exist."

An important point to note regarding 4) is that the media will report further evidence even if something has been refuted. First, it's in their nature to report new developments regardless of the result of these developments. Second, the media needs to make money so if there's further coverage then that means a rise in viewership. Ideally the media would like to have a teleporting cryptid that ate a whole whale a meal yet gave birth to a new species after said meal.

Concluding statement: It appears most if not all criteria carry discrepancies within themselves across different cryptids. This calls for case by case screening and evaluation. Therefore belief in one cryptid does not necessarily imply obligation to believe in another.

shinkyo00, on 14 November 2009 - 01:57 AM, said:

I just signed up on this forum and I like the atmosphere here. Very conductive to good debates unlike some other forums without any hint of civility at all.

That aside, I think this is a very interesting question.

Welcome shinkyo00,

Unfortunately not all of us are exactly civil all the time. I don’t know if you have read this entire thread but there are many fine examples of incivility in this one.

shinkyo00, on 14 November 2009 - 01:57 AM, said:

1) Shaky and blurry media does not mean uniformity of information across all cryptid types. Suppose you had a close up tape of a cryptid that was very easily recognizable either due to environmental conditions or inherent biological attributes. Existing technologies could enhance the tape to confirm what was suspected to be the cryptid's identity at first glance. Therefore it has to be judged on a case by case basis as shakiness and blurriness do not constitute invalidity so far as evidence goes.

Unfortunately it seems that your supposition is not the case when it comes to movies and photos of cryptids. Do you have any good examples of what you are talking about here?

shinkyo00, on 14 November 2009 - 01:57 AM, said:

2) On what grounds are eyewitness accounts questionable? True, they may never be confirmed in some cases, especially where accounts differ. Suppose now that a reputable supreme justice who has no reason to lie reports seeing an animal resembling what is commonly known as "x" cryptid. Do we now classify this account as that of a cryptid or of a known animal? Notice that an allegation like this one points to the possibility of either cryptid "x" or known animal "y" that resembles the cryptid "x", or both. Because of a lack of positive allegation with regards to sighting a cryptid, this account isn't questionable at all because the nature of the allegation is not questionable (i.e. something exists, probably factually as told by the man, though the only description he could give is an object resemblance to a cryptid). So the concluding point is that, due to the plethora of reasons for which eyewitness accounts can be questionable, one cannot assume that the accounts are equally invalid just as one cannot assume that the accounts are equally valid.

Umm… you seem to be proving my point about eyewitnesses here. How do you determine the validity of a sighting, and whom do you determine as a reliable witness? As far I’m concerned there in no way to sort thru the mess of who saw what. I for one choose to approach this question from a scientific angle. Without physical evidence to backup the sightings then the sightings can not be used as evidence to support the existence of a cyriptid.

shinkyo00, on 14 November 2009 - 01:57 AM, said:

3) Believers of these with any rationality (and intelligence) will likely probe the historical plausibility of such legends and myths. Some common sense might help too. For example, if "x" demonic creature really did terrorize a certain village, it is highly unlikely that tales of such a creature are told liberally and especially not for the purpose of scaring children to sleep. That would be counterproductive and also has the effect of crying wolf. This is unless, of course, the creature existed too long ago, which means it is now extinct. In this case, historical data is even more important as there might be documentation on this so again, it comes down to seeing past the first layer of information and digging up the relevant links. Again, case by case judgement is key. Of course cold logical analysis helps too.

If people used cold logical analysis to determine the existence of cryptids then this thread would not have lasted this long. Historical accounts are just as if not more unreliable as modern accounts of cryptids.

shinkyo00, on 14 November 2009 - 01:57 AM, said:

4) Uncovered hoaxes only show that the alleged instances were hoaxed. Also, it ought to carry a probability weighting such that in the grand scheme of things, the attitude towards the cryptids in question should be adjusted accordingly to reflect the likelihood vs unlikelihood of the existence of such a cryptid. Otherwise, a hoax is just one single instance. It cannot account for all instances.

There is more than one instance of hoaxes when it comes to cryptids of all types. If we compare the numbers of hoaxes vs. actual physical evidence then it would seem to me that the reality of such animals is highly questionable. After all such hoaxes would not be necessary if cryptids were real.

shinkyo00, on 14 November 2009 - 01:57 AM, said:

Regarding lack of evidence, all I can say is that it's already been said before. You cannot prove that something does not exist. Negative existence cannot be proven.

It would also seem that you nor anyone else can prove a positive existence.

shinkyo00, on 14 November 2009 - 01:57 AM, said:

As far as media refutation goes, I personally prefer to understand them to mean "So far, with our limited resources (funding), a full scale definitive search is not possible. Therefore as far as practicality goes, and of course with the full backing of our biologists and statisticians and various other experts with training in the hard sciences, we have not turned out a positive result and therefore conclude that after doing what we could, and factoring in our ability level regarding the situation, it is improbable for our quarry to exist."

Science has searched for many cryptids. Bigfoot, nessy, and others have been extensively searched for by both scientists and regular folks; so far no definitive evidence has come to light. I think we have put more than enough money and resources into finding these ephemeral animals.

shinkyo00, on 14 November 2009 - 01:57 AM, said:

An important point to note regarding 4) is that the media will report further evidence even if something has been refuted. First, it's in their nature to report new developments regardless of the result of these developments. Second, the media needs to make money so if there's further coverage then that means a rise in viewership. Ideally the media would like to have a teleporting cryptid that ate a whole whale a meal yet gave birth to a new species after said meal.

Agreed, the media is well known for over exaggerating many stories.

shinkyo00, on 14 November 2009 - 01:57 AM, said:

Concluding statement: It appears most if not all criteria carry discrepancies within themselves across different cryptids. This calls for case by case screening and evaluation. Therefore belief in one cryptid does not necessarily imply obligation to believe in another.

Great post shinkyo00 thanks.

This post has been edited by evancj: 14 November 2009 - 10:21 PM

[evancj]

Chupacabra of Valhalla, on 14 November 2009 - 02:39 AM, said:

For once, I have to agree with you, bud.

Did you even bother to read my entire post, or did you just react to the title like Undeadskeptic did?

Chupacabra of Valhalla, on 14 November 2009 - 02:39 AM, said:

Though it took a break of almost 6 months to do so, but I have to agree. The logic is similar to: I dislike this book, so I dislike every book ever written. It makes no sense.

Don’t you think your analogy comparing my statement to disliking all books because I dislike one is a bit all encompassing and over exaggerated? That’s like saying I don’t believe in cryptids so I don’t believe in any animals.

Perhaps you should have suggested that it is more like I disliked one chapter in the book so I disliked the entire book.

Chupacabra of Valhalla, on 14 November 2009 - 02:39 AM, said:

What you COULD say is most cryptozoological evidence is flimsy at best, the emphasis on the "most"; some of the evidence put forward cannot simply be declared a fake. Much like the democratic right to a fair trial, evidence must be viewed by an unbiased populace, specifically one with little knowledge in the paranormal.

Sure I could say that but then you would be putting words in my mouth that I don’t agree with so I will not. Show me this evidence that “cannot simply be declared a fake”.

Chupacabra of Valhalla, on 14 November 2009 - 02:39 AM, said:

Anyway, bogus logic. I'm taking a degree in philosophy, don't try and outwit me. You can if you want to, but I'm much more educated then when I left. And I have a paranormal radio show too. Burn baby burn, crypto inferno!

A person such as you with such an extensive education in philosophy and logical thinking should be able to express himself better than just saying “bogus logic”. So break it down for me professor show me why my logic is “bogus”. I’m sure you will do a much better job at outwitting yourself than I ever could.

Congrats on your radio show I’m sure it’s very educational and interesting.

[shinkyo00]

evancj, on 14 November 2009 - 04:23 PM, said:

Welcome shinkyo00,

Unfortunately not all of us are exactly civil all the time. I don’t know if you have read this entire thread but there are many fine examples of incivility in this one.



Unfortunately it seems that your supposition is not the case when it comes to movies and photos of cryptids. Do you have any good examples of what you are talking about here?



Umm… you seem to be proving my point about eyewitnesses here. How do you determine the validity of a sighting, and whom do you determine as a reliable witness? As far I’m concerned there in no way to sort thru the mess of who saw what. I for one choose to approach this question from a scientific angle. Without physical evidence to backup the sightings then the sightings can not be used as evidence to support the existence of a cyriptid.



I people used cold logical analysis to determine the existence of cryptids then this thread would not have lasted this long. Historical accounts are just as if not more unreliable as modern accounts of cryptids.



There is more than one instance of hoaxes when it comes to cryptids of all types. If we compare the numbers of hoaxes vs. actual physical evidence then it would seem to me that the reality of such animals is highly questionable. After all such hoaxes would not be necessary if cryptids were real.



It would also seem that you nor anyone else can prove a positive existence.



Science has searched for many cryptids. Bigfoot, nessy, and others have been extensively searched for by both scientists and regular folks; so far no definitive evidence has come to light. I think we have put more than enough money and resources into finding these ephemeral animals.



Agreed, the media is well known for over exaggerating many stories.



Great post shinkyo00 thanks.

If you want my personal opinion? I'll say I don't believe in any of these cryptids that I've heard about. Granted that I don't have much research experience or likewise, I'd be hardpressed to provide positive evidence for some of the points I am making. Granted that, all I did say was that we have to be skeptical about refutations just as much as we have to be skeptical about all the evidence out there.

"Unfortunately it seems that your supposition is not the case when it comes to movies and photos of cryptids. Do you have any good examples of what you are talking about here?"

We are determining the general criteria for evaluating the validty of evidence across all cryptids. As such, we cannot make a decisive change to the criteria itself based on a few examples only. In my prior post all I proposed was that blurriness and shakiness itself is not a good reason to turn down evidence. I said it depends on what information is available even through the blurriness and shakiness.

"Umm… you seem to be proving my point about eyewitnesses here. How do you determine the validity of a sighting, and whom do you determine as a reliable witness? As far I’m concerned there in no way to sort thru the mess of who saw what. I for one choose to approach this question from a scientific angle. Without physical evidence to backup the sightings then the sightings can not be used as evidence to support the existence of a cyriptid."

You are mistaken. Your point is that if you believe in one cryptid, then you must believe in all. I am saying that eyewitness accounts fall into various different categories. I provided the distinction between allegations of existence of a cryptid, allegations of existence of something resembling a cryptid, and allegations of just something. The nature of those allegations is different from one to another. So, realistically, you cannot lump eyewitness accounts into a single category with all the same criteria. For example, allegations of a cryptid are difficult to verify because it implies the possibility of existence in the first place. Allegations of an animal resembling a cryptid on the other hand is a little easier to verify. All you'd have to do is find an animal in the reported area and argue for resemblence etc. Therefore, I am arguing that it's required to examine accounts on a case by case basis.

I do agree that sightings cannot be used as evidence without the existence of hard evidence. However, sightings are useful because it promotes gathering of data. After all, why would anyone search for something if they didn't have reason to believe that there could be something to search for at all?

"I people used cold logical analysis to determine the existence of cryptids then this thread would not have lasted this long. Historical accounts are just as if not more unreliable as modern accounts of cryptids."

The reason historical accounts need to be checked is not because they're to be taken at face value. If they are, then why not just take the myths and legends at face value also? Take the Beast of Gevaudan for instance. I saw a documentary investigating the story and the conclusion was that it's a wolf-dog hybrid and it was trained to be used a murder tool. This is an excellent example where clues might be found in history. Although this is a weak argument with regards to modern sightings, it does show that historical accounts when checked using modern techniques might open doors for possibilities explaining modern mysteries. Also, cold logical analysis only works in cases where contradictions exist to undermine the validity of evidence. This is most apparent in eyewitness accounts and not so much in cases where biological possibility or probability is involved.

"There is more than one instance of hoaxes when it comes to cryptids of all types. If we compare the numbers of hoaxes vs. actual physical evidence then it would seem to me that the reality of such animals is highly questionable. After all such hoaxes would not be necessary if cryptids were real."

The problem here is that people may have other motivations for hoaxes. A quick rise to fame perhaps? There are a myriad of reasons for people to plan and execute elaborate hoaxes regardless of whether the cryptids exist or not. Also, one can plan and execute a hoax regardless of whether one wants to prove or disprove the existence of anything. In addition, what if something elusive did exist and people also hoaxed in its image?

Yes, given the number of hoaxes to actual physical evidence ratio it does seem that the reality of such animals is highly questionable. However, it just means the reality of such is highly questionable, but not completely zero. Again I want to repeat that the nature of the question you asked pertains to selecting criteria for belief or disbelief. The actual truthhood of accounts and evidence uncovered thus far is irrelevant.

"It would also seem that you nor anyone else can prove a positive existence."

That's not what I'm trying to prove in the first place. I myself think that the existence of most of the cryptids I know is improbable. Again, we are only assessing criteria here, not the actual truthhood of falsehood of pertaining evidence.

Wittgenstein's idea of taking every negative to be understood as a negative positive would illustrate this situation best.

"Science has searched for many cryptids. Bigfoot, nessy, and others have been extensively searched for by both scientists and regular folks; so far no definitive evidence has come to light. I think we have put more than enough money and resources into finding these ephemeral animals."

I agree that we have put and probably wasted more than enough money and resources into finding these cryptids. However once again, we're assessing criteria here so media reports must be taken at face value only. First of all they are a secondary source. Second of all like I said, in principle, they must keep reporting facts and opinions regardless regardless of how conclusive they claimed the previous report to be.

"Agreed, the media is well known for over exaggerating many stories."

I don't believe I said it or even touched on that.

Keep in mind that the points I am making are to apply for any further evidence that may appear in the future and this is the way this question has to be answered because of its generality, and also because it's essentially asking: "Is there uniformity of information across all reports and do we have uniformity of criteria for evaluating these cases?"

first edit - bold tags fixed

This post has been edited by shinkyo00: 14 November 2009 - 10:47 PM

[hoosier girl]

I'm sorry but I must disagree. There have been numerous animals that were thought to be myth or believed to have become extinct that were later proven to be alive. The beaked whale is one example of an animal that was once considered a monster of myth now they are confirmed alive. I also feel it is wrong to say that the evidence backing every cryptid is the same.