30 replies to this topic

[keninsc]

Jeff, I'm not say that average people haven't found new species, they most certainly have, however that doesn't make them scientist by default. It means they stumbled onto it and reported it to real scientist who then verified they found something new. Assuming Bigfoots are real then most likely they will be "discovered" by someone who's not qualified to do the proper research or testing that verification requires. However, to repeat myself, if you find a Bigfoot and bring it to a qualified scientific institute, that doesn't make you a scientist suddenly. You're just the guy who found or captured or shot the creature. The real science and such has to be done by qualified people, with real degrees in various disciplines.

Now you seem to be hung up on terms, "Citizen Science" according to Wikipedia:

Citizen science is scientific research conducted, in whole or in part, by amateur or nonprofessional scientists, often by crowdsourcing. Formally, citizen science has been defined as "the systematic collection and analysis of data; development of technology; testing of natural phenomena; and the dissemination of these activities by researchers on a primarily avocational basis".[1] Citizen science is sometimes called "public participation in scientific research."

I might add this is a really poor definition.

People participate in all sorts of research, people down load SETI's software and assist them in analyzing radio signals. People often go on archeological digs to help find artifacts, that's what they are talking about, but these people are just helping out with the mundane stuff. The actual, research and study of what they come up with is up to the real scientist and researchers. Nothing more.

[keninsc]

OMG NW! I very nearly spit coffee all over my screen. Be a good fellow and warn someone before you do that again.

[Jeff Albertson]

keninsc, on 18 December 2012 - 12:34 AM, said:

You can't use a scientific method with it because there isn't any science involved, just stories, legend, myth, superstition and chatelaines. There's no such thing as "citizen science" there's science and then there is.......well........nothing else. Need more? .

The question is still how is cryptozology a psedo-science? I am not claim to be a scientist all I am stating was how cryptoozoology can and has been used by profesional scientist. Yes most people who are intrested in cryptoozology are amatuer and will remain amatuers when using the cryptozoology method but it is used by profesional that can follow the scientific method.

Edited by Jeff Albertson, 18 December 2012 - 02:04 AM.

[keninsc]

Because, by definition it's a pseudo-sceince, which depends on rumor and anecdotal stories rather than actual verified and repeatable facts.

This from Wikipedia:

Cryptozoology (from Greek κρυπτός, kryptos, "hidden" + zoology; literally, "study of hidden animals") is a pseudoscience involving the search for animals whose existence has not been proven. This includes looking for living examples of animals that are considered extinct, such as dinosaurs; animals whose existence lacks physical evidence but which appear in myths, legends, or are reported, such as Bigfoot and Chupacabra; and wild animals dramatically outside their normal geographic ranges, such as phantom cats (also known as Alien Big Cats).
The animals cryptozoologists study are often referred to as cryptids, a term coined by John Wall in 1983.
Cryptozoology is not a recognized branch of zoology or a discipline of science. It is an example of pseudoscience because it relies heavily upon anecdotal evidence, stories and alleged sightings.

I get that you want it to be more than it is, hell I wish it was more than it is, but it isn't.

[Jeff Albertson]

keninsc, on 18 December 2012 - 02:08 AM, said:

Because, by definition it's a pseudo-sceince, which depends on rumor and anecdotal stories rather than actual verified and repeatable facts.

This from Wikipedia:

Cryptozoology (from Greek κρυπτός, kryptos, "hidden" + zoology; literally, "study of hidden animals") is a pseudoscience involving the search for animals whose existence has not been proven. This includes looking for living examples of animals that are considered extinct, such as dinosaurs; animals whose existence lacks physical evidence but which appear in myths, legends, or are reported, such as Bigfoot and Chupacabra; and wild animals dramatically outside their normal geographic ranges, such as phantom cats (also known as Alien Big Cats).
The animals cryptozoologists study are often referred to as cryptids, a term coined by John Wall in 1983.
Cryptozoology is not a recognized branch of zoology or a discipline of science. It is an example of pseudoscience because it relies heavily upon anecdotal evidence, stories and alleged sightings.

I get that you want it to be more than it is, hell I wish it was more than it is, but it isn't.

Cryptozoology method is either to prove cryptid exist or disprove cryptid exist. It looks at anadotale story start the investigation not as proof.  Like the discover made by profesional scientist looking for the giant geko they reied haevily on anadoltale story to figure out what island to start  look on not a blind search but a starting point. It is only psedo-science when you claim you have proof that a cryptid is real. Not if you want to apply science (the search for the truth) to figure out if this story are based in reality or just myth and legends. It use the scientific method to advance our knowledge to seek the truth as it applies to myth and legends.

[keninsc]

Jeff? How can there be a "method" for a discipline that doesn't exist?

There are a lot of people who claim to have all sorts of proof of various things, but strangely they don't ever seem to put their proof out there for real science to study and verify. That isn't Cryptology, that is people who simply lie about what they have.

Many discovered creatures started out as cryptids, Mountain Gorillas are a good example. However, once they were discovered and verified that they were real they aren't cryptids any more, they're real creatures. Just because something starts out as stories told around the campfire doesn't make them any more or less real, just as those same stories make cryptology any more a real science. Don't get me wrong, if I had the money and time to do it, I'd be out doing my own searching for Bigfoot and yeah, I suppose I could call myself a crptozoologist. But that would simply be me trying to make myself sound all professional and stuff and all I am is a guy out looking around in the woods. Even if I shoot one and bring him into a college or university to do the study on, I'm still just the guy who bagged the beasty and brought it in to them. Even if they gave me an Honorary Doctorate Degree. I'm still just the guy who shot Bigfoot. You see what I'm saying?

It's not a real scientific discipline, there is no "method" in Cryptozology.......because it isn't a real discipline. Yeah, someone might compare something to stories of myth and lore, but that isn't anything but an anecdotal comparison and not a scientific observation.

[Night Walker]

Jeff Albertson, on 18 December 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

If you look in the tread I started Artellia there you will find a least five real published papers and that are used in  refernces in scientific litterature.

Jeff Albertson, on 09 December 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

Not all but some of the paper include -

Bayless, M.K. 1998. The artrellia: Dragons of the trees. Reptiles 6 (6):32-47

The papua Monitor Lizard of new Guinea (Varnus saladorii Peter & Dori 1878): Notes on its mystique Vara News 4 (2/3):6

The Reptiles of Papua New Guines British Herpetological Society Bulletin 37:15-31

2004. The local names of Pacific monitor lizards (Sauria:Vananidae) of Oceania & Indo-Malaysia, excluding Austraia. Micronesica 37 (1) 49-54

Mark O'Shea did a show on this T.V. show O'Shea big adventures season 2 episode 5 The tree crocodile.

Mark O'Shea also refences the name Artrellia as for the Varanus salvadorii http://www.markoshea...gift_mlopng.php

The link provided above didn't work but I found one:

http://xa.yimg.com/k....salvadorii.pdf

Nowhere does the article mention the terms "cryptozoology" or "cryptid". Do the others?

Varanus salvadorii is a known species, anyway. The lizard is hunted and skinned alive by tribesmen to make drums, who describe the monitor as an evil spirit that "climbs trees, walks upright, breathes fire, and kills men"; yet the tribesman maintain that the monitor gives warnings if there are crocodiles nearby.

Does the folklore subsequently make it a cryptid?

Edited by Night Walker, 18 December 2012 - 02:47 AM.

[Jeff Albertson]

keninsc, on 18 December 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

Jeff? How can there be a "method" for a discipline that doesn't exist?

There are a lot of people who claim to have all sorts of proof of various things, but strangely they don't ever seem to put their proof out there for real science to study and verify. That isn't Cryptology, that is people who simply lie about what they have.

Many discovered creatures started out as cryptids, Mountain Gorillas are a good example. However, once they were discovered and verified that they were real they aren't cryptids any more, they're real creatures. Just because something starts out as stories told around the campfire doesn't make them any more or less real, just as those same stories make cryptology any more a real science. Don't get me wrong, if I had the money and time to do it, I'd be out doing my own searching for Bigfoot and yeah, I suppose I could call myself a crptozoologist. But that would simply be me trying to make myself sound all professional and stuff and all I am is a guy out looking around in the woods. Even if I shoot one and bring him into a college or university to do the study on, I'm still just the guy who bagged the beasty and brought it in to them. Even if they gave me an Honorary Doctorate Degree. I'm still just the guy who shot Bigfoot. You see what I'm saying?

It's not a real scientific discipline, there is no "method" in Cryptozology.......because it isn't a real discipline. Yeah, someone might compare something to stories of myth and lore, but that isn't anything but an anecdotal comparison and not a scientific observation.

So if there is no method in cryptozoology how would you go about doing it then? The method of cryptozoology is to either prove or disprove a species exist. You saying you can't firgure out any way to apply the scientific method to best apply if a cryptid is real or not, you can actively seek out empirical evidence for said cryptid or prove it is not real, or show it misidentification or  not real. There are crytids that have been shown to be nothing more than mis identification and cryptozoology applyed science to show this. Cryptozology exist you might dout it not a psdo-science but it exsit. People lie about all sort of things are you not aware of the scientific publication that just got recalled because they lied about fracting? Just because some people lie or can't use the scientific method does not mean even one can't.. So what is the Journal done by Jef Meldrum is this not deal with cryptozoology and cryptids in regards to looking at bigfoot?.

[Jeff Albertson]

Night Walker, on 18 December 2012 - 02:45 AM, said:

The link provided above didn't work but I found one:

http://xa.yimg.com/k....salvadorii.pdf

Nowhere does the article mention the terms "cryptozoology" or "cryptid". Do the others?

Varanus salvadorii is a known species, anyway. The lizard is hunted and skinned alive by tribesmen to make drums, who describe the monitor as an evil spirit that "climbs trees, walks upright, breathes fire, and kills men"; yet the tribesman maintain that the monitor gives warnings if there are crocodiles nearby.

Does the folklore subsequently make it a cryptid?

The auther of most of the papers Mark Bayless wrote those papers because of his intrest and study into cryptoozology in regards in investigating the  crptid Artellia. It was first known in folklore before the identification of Varanuss Salavadorii was put forward.  Personal I do think that it was a cryptid, because we thought it only existed in myth and folklore.

[keninsc]

Now you're just talking in circles because you don't want to concede the point.

There is no method because it's not a real scientific discipline, if it were then there would be an established methodology. Since there isn't, then it's up to whomever is doing what to determine what they want to do or not do. Which in itself isn't very scientific, but what the hey?

[flareobox]

Hey guys, no need to compete. I am sure you are both very experienced in the field and you can't let a disagreement divide our small community.

[Jeff Albertson]

keninsc, on 18 December 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

Now you're just talking in circles because you don't want to concede the point.

There is no method because it's not a real scientific discipline, if it were then there would be an established methodology. Since there isn't, then it's up to whomever is doing what to determine what they want to do or not do. Which in itself isn't very scientific, but what the hey?

Just because you are unaware of the method of cryptozoology which was published by the International journal of crptozoology in the Journal the kraken. It is defined as this Cryptozoology is a targed search methodology for zoological discovery, of a cryptid. Either to prove of disprove the existence of said cryptid. Then a cryptid as defined by Dr. Heuvelmans defined cryptid as "Unknown animal forms about which only testimonial or circumstatntal evidence is available or material evidence considered insufficent by some". Just like citizen science that defintion exist, you can look that up to  like  you did after claiming the word citizen science did not exist, you can't say that word or defintion does not exist, and there is not method.

   Cryptozoology unlike the psedo-science deals in tesatable hypothesis. The simple fact is the body of cryptozoology is not psedo-science. There is a very large amount of testable physical evidence (anadotale evidence) in the field of cryptozoology, and testing physical evidence is science. You can argue convincinly that many overly enthusiathic cryptozoologist overearch the data in their claims for particular species. You can't argue that the search for unknown cryptids is scientifically void, and there is no set method.

Edited by Jeff Albertson, 18 December 2012 - 06:51 PM.

[King Fluffs]

Currently, I'm an armchair Cryptozoologist because I do no real field work.

Plannin' on looking for the Cannock Chase werewolf next year though, as I live not too far away.

[keninsc]

Jeff Albertson, on 18 December 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

Just because you are unaware of the method of cryptozoology which was published by the International journal of crptozoology in the Journal the kraken. It is defined as this Cryptozoology is a targed search methodology for zoological discovery, of a cryptid. Either to prove of disprove the existence of said cryptid. Then a cryptid as defined by Dr. Heuvelmans defined cryptid as "Unknown animal forms about which only testimonial or circumstatntal evidence is available or material evidence considered insufficent by some". Just like citizen science that defintion exist, you can look that up to  like  you did after claiming the word citizen science did not exist, you can't say that word or defintion does not exist, and there is not method.

I thought that was who you were talking about. You do realize all he did was write books on the subject, he was obsessed with the Kraken, then later the Minnesota Iceman. He wrote a lot of book which sold quite well, however he never found much acclaim from his peers. Now I see you've fallen under his spell. That explains why you're so insistent on it being a real science. Sadly, the folly of one man's obsession isn't validation.

  

Quote

Cryptozoology unlike the psedo-science deals in tesatable hypothesis. The simple fact is the body of cryptozoology is not psedo-science. There is a very large amount of testable physical evidence (anadotale evidence) in the field of cryptozoology, and testing physical evidence is science. You can argue convincinly that many overly enthusiathic cryptozoologist overearch the data in their claims for particular species. You can't argue that the search for unknown cryptids is scientifically void, and there is no set method.

Ok, so where is this physical evidence? By the way, anecdotal evidence is not real evidence, no matter how much you want it to be. And Dude, wanting it to be real just don't add to the validity. It's actually called "wishful thinking".

[flareobox]

I have read lots of stories on the Beast of Bray road and the werewolves are seriously fascinating.