Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Ultimatium

Is cryptozoology a legitimate science?

73 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Ultimatium
Posted (edited)

As most of you know, cryptozoology is the field of research and studying of unclassified animals, thought to be legends. Most mainstream scientists do not wish to engage in this field of research, simply because it is filled with hoaxes. Some people will even go as far as saying, that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience.

So, what speaks in favor of cryptozoology, and why are some people absolute convinced, that there are still things out there yet to be discovered? Well, cryptozoology has a few things going for it, such as the discovery of the okapi, the devil bird and the megamouth shark, as well as the platypus, a creature so unusual that it took scientists almost 8 years trying to classify it.

So is cryptozoology a real science, or a pseudoscience?

Edited by Ultimatium
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar

I see it as real, though it is a field which is chock full of theories and hypotheses and few hard findings. Unlike some fringe research areas today, it has had a few hits at least. It also lacks seriously educated doctors and scientists except on a closet hobbyist basis, but those who try to research into it using sound methods are what they are. Soon as they find something promising, it gains attention from the mainstream, so there is a service performed.

I am not into cryptids but I don't see any value in trying to bash anything which is outside the core believed to be science truth today. The one certainty is that that core will expand and change as more is learned. Might be a new cryptid or two found out about, might not.

JMO.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
46 minutes ago, Ultimatium said:

simply because it is filled with hoaxes. Some people will even go as far as saying, that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience

I like the idea of finding new species.

Is cryptozoology pseudoscience? be it crypto, paranormal like is alleged spookies or aliens i believe the answer isnt one size fits all but both depends who you ask and whose involved.

since you focused on crypto so will i, for me it doesnt take letters in front of ones name to do real "science" nor do letters mean you have unbiaed intregrity,

if a person wants to pick a specific lets say bigfoot of north America, an alleged large human like hair covered bi pedal hominid then i would say for the most part BF is viewed as pseudoscience because after so many decades and basically zero in the way of scientific evidence most all legitimate scientists do not waste time on it, but pseudo scientists do.

That is not to say if for example a dead bf body wouldnt be welcomed by legitimate scientists.

new species are discover practically daily but most are small, and the researchers finding them do not lable it cryptozoology, sometimes its added after the fact by atrention seeking cryptozoologists.

That label has come to hurt things, in a way like mistakenly saying UFO means alien hurts the legitamate study of unidentified flying objects.

Most all cryptozoologists also look at myth and folklore as likely being based on real creatures which might be the case sometimes but not everytime, they tend to be far more if not too open minded that everything is possible no matter what evidence shows or lack of doesnt prove.

I liked Richard Greenwell an avid cryptozoologist because when asked, Do you believe in bigfoot? his reply and i paraphase was, Its not about belief its about what science can prove, i feel there is enough evidence for scientists to tale a look at the bigfoot phenomenon. ( this was many years back )

He also wasnt scared to for example write off some creatures to folklore, sadly hes been gone a while.

So, do i personally think "cryptozoology" is a pseudoscience? Yes, from what i see of cryptozoologists today for the most part it is ,  however i fully believe the hunt for unknown creatures is a legitmate science, i guess its all about the lable and those who cling to it.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 hours ago, Ultimatium said:

 

So is cryptozoology a real science, or a pseudoscience?

Real science. Real science investigates all serious claims.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
openozy

I can't see it as anything but a time wasting hobby, you can't be an expert in an unknown species.The only cryptozoologist that I've met was a fruitcake looking for Yowies his whole life,and obviously finding nothing.I think its a fancy name for a non existant job.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
Posted (edited)

It's a pseudoscience by definition.

Quote

However, cryptozoology is widely criticised for an array of reasons and is rejected by the academic world. There is a broad consensus from academics that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience.[15][16][17][18] The field is regularly criticized for reliance on anecdotal information[19] and because in the course of investigating animals that most scientists believe are unlikely to have existed, cryptozoologists do not follow the scientific method.[20] Hill notes that "there is no academic course of study in cryptozoology or no university degree program that will bestow the title 'cryptozoologist'."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptozoology#Reception_and_pseudoscience

For something to be considered a science, it would have to adhere to the scientific process. Cryptozoology does not.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO

its an ology and all ologies are very important requiring great expertise.

Sorry old BT ad came to mind for some reason.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain Risky
2 hours ago, openozy said:

I can't see it as anything but a time wasting hobby, you can't be an expert in an unknown species.The only cryptozoologist that I've met was a fruitcake looking for Yowies his whole life,and obviously finding nothing.I think its a fancy name for a non existant job.

The scary thought is what would he be doing if he wasn't looking for yowies. More Cryptologists thank you very much!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Real science. Real science investigates all serious claims.

Okay. Are there are serious claims when it comes to cryptozoology?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
7 hours ago, Ultimatium said:

As most of you know, cryptozoology is the field of research and studying of unclassified animals, thought to be legends. Most mainstream scientists do not wish to engage in this field of research, simply because it is filled with hoaxes. Some people will even go as far as saying, that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience.

So, what speaks in favor of cryptozoology, and why are some people absolute convinced, that there are still things out there yet to be discovered? Well, cryptozoology has a few things going for it, such as the discovery of the okapi, the devil bird and the megamouth shark, as well as the platypus, a creature so unusual that it took scientists almost 8 years trying to classify it.

So is cryptozoology a real science, or a pseudoscience?

I don't see how the discovery of those few species found in remote places supports the idea of large animals living in much closer proximity to civilisations. I would have thought the very opposite would be a more likely result. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

As has been already mentioned, finding new species is something done in science and it is done all of the time. Listened to a biologist studying fish the other day. They have a number of new species being validated. Despite all of this the field of cryptozoology is not reporting a single new specie. They would like to claim that the okapi and mountain gorilla and colossal squid and platypus are examples of cryptids, but that is not true at all. These are examples of animals discovered by science that science already knew existed. They just had to find them and they did find them quickly.

Those looking for cryptids and doing a good job of it are those that do little beyond researching the origins of the story.  They don't do the field work and they do not attempt to falsify their research. 

Let's take an example. Consider bigfoot. If cryptozoologists were serious they could take an area and pool their money to saturate an area with trail cams where there are multiple reports or seasonal reports of BF.  Take Loch Ness. Why not get lots and lots of trail cams in place. The ones there are only placed where identification is not possible. They generate tourist dollars, not information. Honest searches for Champ in Lake Champlain led to the discovery of shipwrecks as sonar scans were exhaustively done of the lake. You'd think that if Loch Ness fishing scanners and Lake Champlain fishing scanners were out all of the time that there would be more reports. Lake Champlain hosts fishing derbies and there have been zero reports from those events.

It certainly looks to me as if the cryptozoologist is more interested in finding odd stories than in doing science. Not all old stories have a grain of truth to them.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox

Cryptozoology is not inherently a pseudoscience as some people would claim, but unfortunately it often is in practice. There are some researchers who apply legitimate scientific methods to analyze cryptozoological subjects like Darren Naish and Charles Paxton. However, they are by far in the minority.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Here is my sophomoric way of looking at it,...

If cryptozoologists will except and embrace scientific findings that debunk certain cryptids, then yes, they do operate as scientists. MO.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
3 hours ago, stereologist said:

Okay. Are there are serious claims when it comes to cryptozoology?

I say 'Yes'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I say 'Yes'.

Such as what? Please do more than posting some vague suggestions.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem

No it is not legitimate science. How does one study an animal never proven to be real?

That's akin to me calling myself a Vampirologist. Or a ghostologist.

Don't get me wrong, you can study the theory of unknown animals, but without any actual specimens to observe what scientific inquiry is there to be had into nothing?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 hour ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

No it is not legitimate science. How does one study an animal never proven to be real?

That's akin to me calling myself a Vampirologist. Or a ghostologist.

Don't get me wrong, you can study the theory of unknown animals, but without any actual specimens to observe what scientific inquiry is there to be had into nothing?

It's basically a folklorist. No science needed. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ultimatium
Posted (edited)
On 8/21/2019 at 12:00 AM, psyche101 said:

I don't see how the discovery of those few species found in remote places supports the idea of large animals living in much closer proximity to civilisations. I would have thought the very opposite would be a more likely result. 

Well, the platypus was first thought to be a cryptid, and later thought to be a hoax. Scientists went in denial once an actual platypus was caught, they thought someone had sewn the beak of a duck to a beaver. Its basically a creature straight out of someones imagination.

In any case, if a poisonious duck beaver can be real, then i dont think its that much of a stretch to believe that a giant ape lives somewhere in the pacific northwest.

Edited by Ultimatium
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carnoferox
31 minutes ago, Ultimatium said:

Well, the platypus was first thought to be a cryptid, and later thought to be a hoax. Scientists went in denial once an actual platypus was caught, they thought someone had sewn the beak of a duck to a beaver. Its basically a creature straight out of someones imagination.

In any case, if a poisonious duck beaver can be real, then i dont think its that much of a stretch to believe that a giant ape lives somewhere in the pacific northwest.

Cryptozoology wasn’t even a concept when the platypus was discovered, so it’s hard to call it a cryptid. We also have fossils outlining the evolution of the platypus, which can’t be said for bigfoot.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
14 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Here is my sophomoric way of looking at it,...

If cryptozoologists will except and embrace scientific findings that debunk certain cryptids, then yes, they do operate as scientists. MO.

257c6b63c49e3f0b8d4f0bd1a7905577.jpg.ea843da3f68b16b097e4eea172c0ec20.jpg

Boy when EoTs nails it he nails it! :tu:

the thread made me think about it more And here in lies the problem "ologists" in general very few i can think of if any who arent basically the most biased and closed minded self proclaimed experts out there.

Doesnt much matter if the prefix is "crypto" "ufo" or "ghost" etc they all seem cut from the same cloth.

And it seems "ologist" are just blind faith true believers whose egos desired a more important legitimate sounding title.

Convoluted or even hypocritical  I.E. a UFOologist might beat his fist UFOs are alien craft and real ( with zero proof ) yet scoff at the bigfootologist for in his opinion being so ridiculous to believe his interests in bf are worthy while the bigfootologist laughs at the ghostologist who believes in spooks and haunts.

Science, logic and facts of actual evidence or lack there of just doesnt have a place with most true belivers, ahem, ologists, ive seen ologists denounce the most rock solid evidence to support their blind faith so in that i will have to change my opinion to anything with "ologist" as a sufix is pseudoscience, and in many cases isnt even worthy of being called pseudoscience.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, Ultimatium said:

Well, the platypus was first thought to be a cryptid, and later thought to be a hoax. Scientists went in denial once an actual platypus was caught, they thought someone had sewn the beak of a duck to a beaver. Its basically a creature straight out of someones imagination.

In any case, if a poisonious duck beaver can be real, then i dont think its that much of a stretch to believe that a giant ape lives somewhere in the pacific northwest.

I still don't see how that equates to a large animal living in closer proximity to more civilisation is supported by an unusual animal found on a remote island. I would be the indigenous Australians were not in doubt or baffled by the platypus and with the hoaxes of the time  such as the Fiji mermaid were good reason to consider new finds with skepticism. It was on the other side of the planet and therefore out of reach. It doesn't support the idea of a huge ape living under our noses and completely hidden. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
7 hours ago, Ultimatium said:

Well, the platypus was first thought to be a cryptid, and later thought to be a hoax. Scientists went in denial once an actual platypus was caught, they thought someone had sewn the beak of a duck to a beaver. Its basically a creature straight out of someones imagination.

In any case, if a poisonious duck beaver can be real, then i dont think its that much of a stretch to believe that a giant ape lives somewhere in the pacific northwest.

Remember that the platypus was in hand. They had a specimen. I don't recall any specimens of bigfoot or yeti in hand.

The same is true of some other creatures cryptozoologists point to:

  • mountain gorilla - they had bones
  • colossal squid - they had beaks and pieces of tentacles in whale stomachs
  • okapi - they had a piece of hide

They had pieces of the animals which made them look. They found the animals and in years. BF hunts have been going on for half a century and longer. There are plenty of differences.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
21 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I say 'Yes'.

Ditto stereologist on this one.

Care to list them ParaG? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
On 8/21/2019 at 5:50 AM, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Cryprozoologist do not spend their time looking for okapi, platypus, or mega mouth sharks. Field biologists do. Or sometimes anthropologists. Actual scientists. Cryprtozoologists are too busy looking for moth men, lizard people, bigfoot, Thunderbirds, and other creatures that only exist in folklore.

^^:tu:

Hold the fort Imaginarynumber1, papaG is coming back with a list of "serious claims". 

tenor.gif

  • Haha 2

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.