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
Vidgange

Have Cryptozoology ever done anything useful?

   59 members have voted

  1. 1. Are cryptozoologists relevent?

    • Yes, very much so!
      19
    • Naaaw, they ain't done sh!t
      22
    • Without them we'd forget all those cryptids out there!
      15
    • A crypto-who??
      3

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

102 posts in this topic

To me it's not a contest of 'how many people can I sway to believe what I believe'. I'm a seeker of universal truth. To those willing to listen I will tell the truth as I perceive it. Whether or not they decide to perceive it as well is up to them. :)

And thank you for the welcome. It's appreciated.

Nor should it be a contest, but having a discussion/argument can be really fulfilling :D I thought your post had some good points, but perhaps I should have worded my thesis better; "Have a self proclaimed cryptozoologist ever done anything for science?" I highly doubt that a zoologist, or marine zoologist would call themselves for a cryptozoologist if they happened to stubble upon a new species...

But I'm quite interested in your view you the truth; what's that?

any one person who's new here and makes an insightful post deserves to be welcomed!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think "Cryptozoologists" would care if they found a new species of tiny lizard or something, they'd just squish it with their tripod to setup a night vision camera for their bigfoots and other giant wolf monsters.

MEANWHILE.... OUT THERE IN THE REAL FORESTS SOMEWHERE...

Zoologists discover frogs, insects and mundane creatures, pretty much useless for a horror movie buff who wants to be a monster hunter

Edited by Space_Jockey
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think "Cryptozoologists" would care if they found a new species of tiny lizard or something, they'd just squish it with their tripod to setup a night vision camera for their bigfoots and other giant wolf monsters.

MEANWHILE.... OUT THERE IN THE REAL FORESTS SOMEWHERE...

Zoologists discover frogs, insects and mundane creatures, pretty much useless for a horror movie buff who wants to be a monster hunter

Seems a little unfair to automatically assume all cryptozoologists behave that way. You would have to take a sample of the population & survey them before you can claim this as any sort of fact.

You can believe that there is no such thing as Nessie or Sasquatch but scientifically, until you can search every corner of their possible habitat in a manner that sweeps the whole habitat with no 'holes' and find nothing, then as improbable as it may be, it is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes as we are all here discussing cryptozoology subjects. :st

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems a little unfair to automatically assume all cryptozoologists behave that way. You would have to take a sample of the population & survey them before you can claim this as any sort of fact.

... or you can simply look at exactly which new species have been found by folk who specifically identify with the cryptozoologist label (ie monster hunters rather than the scientists and naturalists who actually do find and catalogue new species but do not identify themselves as being cryptozoologists) - ie. nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... or you can simply look at exactly which new species have been found by folk who specifically identify with the cryptozoologist label (ie monster hunters rather than the scientists and naturalists who actually do find and catalogue new species but do not identify themselves as being cryptozoologists) - ie. nothing.

By taking an uncontrolled data-set, you're committing the same crimes of science as the individuals you so readily raise flame against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok people back to basics.

Crypto = hidden

Zoology = study of animals

Therefore: Cryptozoology is the study of hidden animals. Expanded definition includes the possibility of animals who are considered extinct, living outside of their natural habitat and on the more gantastical end... mythic monsters.

Unfortunately the basics are no help when defining cryptozoology, or cryptozoologists. The basic and expanded definitions are as vague and murky as the pseudoscience itself. It seems anything thing can be a cryptid, and anyone (whether they like it or not) can be or be labeled a cryptozoologist.

For example; the study of hidden animals. What exactly does "hidden" imply? And I am stressing the word "imply" here. Real scientific and medical ologies are very specific in their definitions. As far as ologies go I would rank cryptozoology very low on the scale...maybe just slightly above scientology. After all both of them talk a lot of crap they cant backup, and both were just made up by guys trying to sell books.

Cryptozoologists love to redefine already well defined and existing terms such as "species unknown to science", "extinct species", "introduced species", "invasive species", or "escaped exotic species" and turn them into cryptids so that they justify the existence of the "mythical species"...which is the real implied definition of "hidden/crypto" in cryptozoology. It's the mythological beasts that are cryptozoologies real bread and butter.

Perhaps a more accurate nomenclature for cryptozoology would be "impossibiliszoology". The study of animals "not able to be possible".

So a cryptozoologist is merely one who searches and/or finds a hidden animal. This is an adjective. It is used to describe a particular action (finding 'hidden' animals). One doesn't need to recognize that one is a cryptozoologist any more than a white man needs to acknowledge he's white while he's doing his job. Infact, if a zoologist found a 'hidden' species and acknowledged himself for the cryptozoologist he was at the point in time, he'd be laughed out of scientific circles because the scientific community focuses on the fantastical aspect of cryptozoology rather than the more realistic aspects of it.

I may be wrong but I don't think the word "cryptozoologist" is an adjective.

Why would someone who spent years studying, in a university to get a degree in zoology want to be called something as nonsensical as cryptozoologist? That degree and the knowledge that it comes with it is what separates real science from cryptozoology. If I cut a sliver out of my toe does that make me an orthopedic surgeon at that point in time?

Funny you should mention a white man and cryptozoology in the same sentence. I have argued that cryptozoology is a western white mans concept. One that conventionally (like in the examples below) overlooks the fact that the native peoples (in almost every example you provided) not only knew about these animals, but provided the people you have labled "cryptozoologist" their first specimens. The rules change if the animal is the mythical type of cryptid such as bigfoot, or nessy, then cryptozoologist will use any and all ancient native lore and twist it into evidence to support their existence.

The following crypids had some pretty nonsensical traits that were later disproven as we've been able to study these animals. They were hidden and shrowded in folklore, but via science they are no longer hidden. We no longer believe the wild claims of those who had seen these animals prior to their 'official finding'. They were hidden (crypto), animals (zoology) that were found by those studying their surroundings. Hence, zoologists finding hidden animals = a cryptozoologist (whether or not they have the balls to call themselves one). Doesn't get much simpler then that, kids.

Simple? Yes. True? No.

Edited by evancj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems a little unfair to automatically assume all cryptozoologists behave that way. You would have to take a sample of the population & survey them before you can claim this as any sort of fact.

You can believe that there is no such thing as Nessie or Sasquatch but scientifically, until you can search every corner of their possible habitat in a manner that sweeps the whole habitat with no 'holes' and find nothing, then as improbable as it may be, it is possible.

And I'll continue to assume that way until the so called cryptozoologists ever do something of worth. It's no use defending useless folk, just because you want to be nice and fair. Again, since nobody can provide any useful contributions by them.

I see you got the meaning of cryptozoology right, but a 'cryptozoologist' is different, it isn't what you're thinking. No Zoologist would ever just call himself a 'Cryptozoologist' if he finds a new species. Where did you get that now?

There's a difference between a Zoologist and a horror movie buff who wants to be monster hunters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By taking an uncontrolled data-set, you're committing the same crimes of science as the individuals you so readily raise flame against.

Zero is not an uncontrolled data set.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who questions what is "Known" is necessary

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to pay a ton of money to corrupt educational systems to receive a piece of paper saying you did the homework well enough to be considered a zoologist as far as their accountants are concerned.

Doing the research and doling out cash for a license are two different things.

That doesn't mean everyone who's ever got a piece of paper saying they're a "Zoologist" doesn't do any research. There will obviously be at least a few credible Zoologists coming out of the education system. Are you that untrusting? really?

I mean, it's better than some guy who watched Teen Wolf as a kid, grew up and joined a bunch of others who want to tell spooky stories out in the woods. How is he gonna know anything about habitats or food sources?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go to good old Webster for some definitions. Back to basics.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cryptozoology

: the study of and search for animals and especially legendary animals (as Sasquatch) usually in order to evaluate the possibility of their existence

FACT: The previously mentioned animals were 'Legendary' animals. The locals had some pretty fantastic myths & legends about them UNTIL scientists (zoologists) evaluated their existence & validated their existance but debunked their mythical attributes.

Unfortunately the basics are no help when defining cryptozoology, or cryptozoologists. The basic and expanded definitions are as vague and murky as the pseudoscience itself. It seems anything thing can be a cryptid, and anyone (whether they like it or not) can be or be labeled a cryptozoologist.

I agree, it is thrown around halfhazardly. And because of that people focus on the fantastical/mythical/legend aspect of cryptozoology. But that's only a piece of what it is. Yes it does encompass myths & legends. That's why most scientists & zoologist do not claim to be one. They don't want the ridicule that is thrown on them by the scientific community. HOWEVER mythical cryptids are often discovered and their fantastical myths debunked. Zoologists discover what locals talked about for generations, find they don't have the fantastical mythical qualities the locals claimed they did & add the species to the books. This is infact a practice of cryptozoology. You are studying & showing the existence of a creature that was 'hidden' and not known to exist. This simple act makes you a cryptozoologist by default regardless if you want to acknowledge you are one.

Let me use an example. You can drink 1 beer a day, perform your work & function fine in society. If you do so you can claim vehemently that you're 'not' a drinker (who wants that stigma?). But you drink, therefore whether or not you want to admit it, you're a drinker.

You can study animals and find 'hidden' animals (either thought extinct or merely legend) and perform your job well as a zoologist. You can claim vehemently that you're 'not' a cryptozoologist (who wants that stigma?). But you have found hidden animal and shown it's possibility of existence, therefore whether or not you want to admit it, you're a cryptozoolgist.

For example; the study of hidden animals. What exactly does "hidden" imply? And I am stressing the word "imply" here. Real scientific and medical ologies are very specific in their definitions. As far as ologies go I would rank cryptozoology very low on the scale...maybe just slightly above scientology. After all both of them talk a lot of crap they cant backup, and both were just made up by guys trying to sell books.

I don't consider cryptozoology a real science either... it's a description of a certain kind of animal (extinct, mythic) or person (one who searches or discovers the extinct or mythic). That's why I call it an adjective, a description even though Webster calls it a noun.

Cryptozoologists love to redefine already well defined and existing terms such as "species unknown to science", "extinct species", "introduced species", "invasive species", or "escaped exotic species" and turn them into cryptids so that they justify the existence of the "mythical species"...which is the real implied definition of "hidden/crypto" in cryptozoology. It's the mythological beasts that are cryptozoologies real bread and butter.

That's assuming all cryptozoologists are out to capture Bigfoot and make 10mill. This is a matter of opinion and I respect your opinion though I don't agree with it.

Perhaps a more accurate nomenclature for cryptozoology would be "impossibiliszoology". The study of animals "not able to be possible".

What about physical biology in general is so impossible? Deer being about to breath out of gills is a bit of a stretch but after studying the gilled antelope they found it was just nose flaps. The creature did exist just not in the way locals described and it was believed. It's not that some of these animals can't possibly exist. It's that they can't possibly have the legendary traits people claim they do and in most cases it may simply be just a matter of misidentification or misunderstanding.

Why would someone who spent years studying, in a university to get a degree in zoology want to be called something as nonsensical as cryptozoologist?

Exactly! That's my point. There is so much stigma associated with cryptozoology that it's shunned by the scientific community.

If I cut a sliver out of my toe does that make me an orthopedic surgeon at that point in time?

That's a bad analogy. You don't need a degree or special training to be a cryptozoologist & cryptozoologists do not claim to be zoologists, you do need training & a degree to be an orthopedic. A better analogy would be someone cutting off their own warts on their feet. No special training, but performing a procedure with less finesse and skill but for an actual purpose. Most cryptozoologists without scientific training or background in hunting are unlikely to be able to provide any proof other than stories so yet again, why C is stigmatized.

Funny you should mention a white man and cryptozoology in the same sentence. I have argued that cryptozoology is a western white mans concept. One that conventionally (like in the examples below) overlooks the fact that the native peoples (in almost every example you provided) not only knew about these animals, but provided the people you have labled "cryptozoologist" their first specimens. The rules change if the animal is the mythical type of cryptid such as bigfoot, or nessy, then cryptozoologist will use any and all ancient native lore and twist it into evidence to support their existence.

You're absolutely right! Cryptids don't magically appear just because we're not noticing them. They've always existed, we've just been ignorant to that fact because they've been 'hidden' from mainstream view. Cryptozoology isn't about making animals 'magically appear'. It's about finding the ones that mainstream science hasn't seen & accepted yet because all they've heard & seen are stories. I don't think bigfoot or nessy are anything mythical. I think they're either misidentifications or a pre-existing creature we've yet to discover. I think they're flesh & blood with the same physical attributes animals & humans have.

Simple? Yes. True? No.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder. I respect & appreciate your truth as it makes me look closer to my own. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see you got the meaning of cryptozoology right, but a 'cryptozoologist' is different, it isn't what you're thinking. No Zoologist would ever just call himself a 'Cryptozoologist' if he finds a new species. Where did you get that now?

Might want to reread that cowboy. I basically said "No self respecting zoologist would call himself a cryptozoologist'. :tu:

There's a difference between a Zoologist and a horror movie buff who wants to be monster hunters.

Absolutely! Just like there's a difference between a cryptozoologist and a horror movie buff who wants to be a monster hunter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zero is not an uncontrolled data set.

Your data set wasn't "zero", it was "all the people I read about on the UM headliners."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't mean everyone who's ever got a piece of paper saying they're a "Zoologist" doesn't do any research. There will obviously be at least a few credible Zoologists coming out of the education system. Are you that untrusting? really?

I mean, it's better than some guy who watched Teen Wolf as a kid, grew up and joined a bunch of others who want to tell spooky stories out in the woods. How is he gonna know anything about habitats or food sources?

Reading more into it than I said. I never said they were incompetent because they came out of a failed system (although a number of them are, they tend not to make the news), my point was that knowledge does not come exclusively from the failed system. People who acquire their knowledge through self-study are not recognized by the failed system, because it's failed.

There are a million and five books about habitats and food sources for every classified species known to man. I'm sure anyone can read those without having gone to college. If not, I suppose I should just burn all my books now, since I'm apparently not allowed to touch them. I guess I'll have to cancel my internet subscription as well. And never go to the library. And heaven forbid I watch Animal Planet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely! Just like there's a difference between a cryptozoologist and a horror movie buff who wants to be a monster hunter.

I very small difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your data set wasn't "zero", it was "all the people I read about on the UM headliners."

No, I actually go out to look for local cryptids. Do you? Please, sir, show me the man-monkey...

If your definition definition of cryptozoology is sufficiently broad enough to include discoveries by scientists/naturalists/others who are just doing what they are supposed to do and do not consider themselves to be cryptozoologists (other than in a tongue-in-cheek manner - which says much about the nature of cryptozoology) then, of course, cryptozoology has proven results. Every new discovery is of a cryptid and proof for Bigfoot, Mokele Mbembe (I wonder whatever happened to that recent "expedition"?), and the Loch Ness Monster is just around the corner. Go, cryptozoology! Woo-hoo!

If, however, you actually delineate science from pseudoscience or go out "into the field" and compare the methods and results of those scientists/naturalists/non-cryptozoologists with those of the cryptozoologists you will notice that there is only a superficial similarity. Illusion and the showmanship that goes along with it are important parts of cryptozoology.

Illusion - 1. a. An erroneous perception of reality; b. An erroneous concept or belief.

2. The condition of being deceived by a false perception or belief.

3. Something, such as a fantastic plan or desire, that causes an erroneous belief or perception.

(Source)

What cryptozoology actually is is vastly different from what it purports to be. Illusion. Comparing it to real discoveries is simply obfuscation and therefore part of the illusion. This is why we discuss it here in a paranormal/mystery forum and not in a wildlife/naturalist forum. Spend some time with your local cryptozoologist/monster-hunter and see for yourself. Cryptozoology is incompatible with science/naturalism but on a par with ghost hunting (just not as popular yet)...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've totally missed my point on what cryptozoology is.

Cryptozoology isn't a thing. It's a slur. Like "******" but full of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've totally missed my point on what cryptozoology is.

Cryptozoology isn't a thing. It's a slur. Like "******" but full of science.

It is a thing because people do it. And it is a slur because cryptozoology merely apes science/naturalism. Therefore it is very much like BS with science-like stuff thrown in for good measure.

Still, I encourage you (and everyone else regardless of their position) to go out and see for themselves...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a thing because people do it.

No, nobody does cryptozoology. There are really good zoologists, really bad zoologists, and people who combine aspects of mythology, zoology, biology, and a million other ologies. But there is no cryptozoology. It's not a thing, it's not a practice. It's a slur that has been popularized and sensationalized, but it's still just nothing.

I can call myself a hideoneurohibuscanologist, but that isn't a thing. Cryptozoology is not a thing. Anybody can claim to be a cryptozoologist, but that doesn't make it a thing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, nobody does cryptozoology. There are really good zoologists, really bad zoologists, and people who combine aspects of mythology, zoology, biology, and a million other ologies. But there is no cryptozoology. It's not a thing, it's not a practice. It's a slur that has been popularized and sensationalized, but it's still just nothing.

I can call myself a hideoneurohibuscanologist, but that isn't a thing. Cryptozoology is not a thing. Anybody can claim to be a cryptozoologist, but that doesn't make it a thing.

I disagree. People do practice, discuss, and write about cryptozoology. It is a virtual sub-culture. There was even a scholarly group - the International Society of Cryptozoology - founded in 1982 which also published a journal with the goal of serving "as a focal point for the investigation, analysis, publication, and discussion of all matters related to animals of unexpected form or size, or unexpected occurrence in time or space." The journal ceased publication in 1996 and the ISC shut down 2 years later because of financial difficulties [source].

Cryptozoology is a hobby whereby people spend time, gain pleasure from, and pour money into while some are even able to profit from it (much like any hobby, really). As it is largely practiced today it may not be particularly valid scientifically and it may not be about what it purports to be about but it is, at the very least, a socially recogognised construct and, therefore, a thing.

Things that don't exist are still things and that is kinda the whole point of cryptozoology...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whole point of cryptozoology...

No, no. Even in cryptozoological circles the point of cryptozoology isn't "The Study of Things That Don't Exist", it's "The Study of Hidden Things."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no. Even in cryptozoological circles the point of cryptozoology isn't "The Study of Things That Don't Exist", it's "The Study of Hidden Things."

The trouble is that cryptozoology, as it is practiced, is not what is purports to be (How is that for "hidden"?). In that respect, I think the former definition is far more accurate than the latter...

Edited by Night Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go to good old Webster for some definitions. Back to basics.

http://www.merriam-w...y/cryptozoology

: the study of and search for animals and especially legendary animals (as Sasquatch) usually in order to evaluate the possibility of their existence

FACT: The previously mentioned animals were 'Legendary' animals. The locals had some pretty fantastic myths & legends about them UNTIL scientists (zoologists) evaluated their existence & validated their existance but debunked their mythical attributes.

I also question the validity of the above "FACT" as well: The examples quoted were never "legendary animals". They are real animals about which legends, myths, and tales have been told. it is a subtle yet important distinction. The Gilled Antelope, Okapi, Platypus, Giant Squid, and Komodo Dragon, therefore, are no more "legendary animals" than the countless dogs, horses, cats, crows, mice, cows, monkeys, wolves, kangaroos, etc that have had similar legends/myths/tales that have been told (and continue to be told) about them.

"Legendary animals" (like Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster) exist solely within our legends/myths/stories and within the fringe of human experience. This does not lessen their impact and importance upon the groups which relate such stories - it strengthens it thereby strengthening the bonds within the group. We shouldn't forget that we humans are a complicated lot - our legends/myths/tales have meaning and significance far beyond their strictly literal interpretations...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is that cryptozoology, as it is practiced, is not what is purports to be (How is that for "hidden"?). In that respect, I think the former definition is far more accurate than the latter...

Then you think wrong.

shrug.png

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.