Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Karlis

In praise of cryptobiologists

31 posts in this topic

Even in the 21st century, the natural world is still brimming with mystery. Not all of the new discoveries are small or obscure. The Mindoro fruit bat, discovered in the Philippines in 2007, has a 1-metre wingspan.The same year saw the discovery of a venomous snakein Australia and a large electric ray in South Africa. arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Serious research on those kind of subjects is often discredited to soon. They are researching the mysterious, not going on tales of the boogey man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just a matter of time until we prove the existence of the boogey man...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you expect from people whose job it is to find Bigfoot? I personally think it would be a fun job but I wouldn't want to do it because of the criticism. I think they should get more respect simply because they basically are like zoologists and have to know about animals we know exist to help them find the ones we haven't found yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Did you actually read the article? They mentioned a David Bickford, a cryptozoologist/biologist who has discovered several previously unknown species. No one said anything about giving them baseless praise and respect as far as I can tell, more about not discounting them because they research species that we don't have proof of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Did you actually read the article? They mentioned a David Bickford, a cryptozoologist/biologist who has discovered several previously unknown species. No one said anything about giving them baseless praise and respect as far as I can tell, more about not discounting them because they research species that we don't have proof of.

Yes I did read the article and I must say I did not find it very credible. As soon as they claimed the coelacanth (not the same species that went extinct) as a cryptid it lost all credibility for me.

I did a little search on David Bickford and I cannot find anything where he claims he is a cryptozoologist. In fact it looks like all the usual nut job crypto sites are the one calling him a cryptozoologist.

I did find a paper he wrote, along with his academic profile and research interests, and guess what, cyrptozology was not mentioned.

http://www.dbs.nus.edu.sg/research/gallery/info/DAVID_FoSResearchNewsletterDecember2008File.pdf

Academic Profile:

David Bickford received his Ph.D. in Tropical Biology from the University of Miami, in Coral Gables, Florida, USA under Jay Savage in 2001. After his Ph.D., he worked at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas as postdoctoral fellow exploring the evolution and ecology of frogs on a Tree of Life grant. Dr. Bickford has worked in Australasia for more than 10 years, mostly on the large tropical islands of New Guinea, Borneo, Sulawesi, and Sumatra. He was awarded the Bacardi Young Conservationist Award in 2006.

Research Interests:

Evolutionary ecology Herpetology (primarily frogs) Conservation Adaptive radiations Tropical biodiversity Climate change

As far as the lungless frog discovery goes, it turns out that it was previously known. Dr. Bickford along with the original discoverer just found 2 new populations.

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2008/04/first_lungless_frog_discovered_in_borneo.php

Bickford found nine specimens on a recent expedition to the island in 2007 and before then, only two specimens had ever been found in almost 30 years of searching.

http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/lungless-frog-adaptation-reduces-buoyancy-oblate-spheroid

Bickford's Indonesian colleague, Djoko Iskandar, first came across the frog 30 years ago and has been searching for it ever since. He didn't know the frog was lungless until they cut eight of the specimens open in the lab.

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.

Edited by evancj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't know about the bigfoot but if someone would research the forums on this site I am sure they will find plenty of evidence for the elusive bigmouth....They leave evidence everywhere but nobody has actually seen one or one that will admit they are of the species.......

Edited by PowerPC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much a job as a hobby. You cannot make any money being a cryptozoologist. Who would pay you to look for bigfoot? And it costs money to get traps and cameras. People shouldn't treat is as a job or a valid branch of science. REAL biologists are the ones that find new species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Just because they have not found a Big Foot doesn't mean they shouldn't look. We would still think the Earth was flat and be riding animals as our main transportation if people would never thought for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you expect from people whose job it is to find Bigfoot? I personally think it would be a fun job but I wouldn't want to do it because of the criticism. I think they should get more respect simply because they basically are like zoologists and have to know about animals we know exist to help them find the ones we haven't found yet.

This is what burns me the most about the fakers & those who pull hoaxes - we'll never know if any video or supposed evidence is real because of them. Yeesh, that grainy footage of a gorilla might actually be Bigfoot, but because of the pranksters, we'll never know because they've ruined all credibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about the bigfoot but if someone would research the forums on this site I am sure they will find plenty of evidence for the elusive bigmouth....They leave evidence everywhere but nobody has actually seen one or one that will admit they are of the species.......

Very interesting. I did some research on this strange animal and did find one that has at least 18 posts. Thanks for the tip. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because they have not found a Big Foot doesn't mean they shouldn't look.

Who's saying they shouldn't look?

We would still think the Earth was flat and be riding animals as our main transportation if people would never thought for themselves.

So believing anyone's story or the people whom sell books and videos about these mythical beasts is thinking for yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support and respect the people that want to go out and look for cryptids, who knows, might they not find something? You don't know until you look. But I don't think they should be calling themselves 'experts' or pretending to be a type of science. It's like comparing treasure hunting and archeology. Yes, treasure hunting does sometimes get results, but it's not valid science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.