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?

75 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

third_eye

New species are being discovered all the time, unimaginable as it may seem, most are beyond even the imagination of specialized fiction authors, the reason some are more famously notorious than most and lasted as long as it does, is exactly that it is impossible to prove real rather the opposite. 

Initiating papameter protocols... Standing by.... On mark... #beep#

~

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
12 hours 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?

There are demonologists.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
12 hours 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?

They are not trying to study the animal but rather, using some detective work to see if it exists.

Being a detective is not exactly what I call anti science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
2 hours ago, stereologist said:

 

  • mountain gorilla - they had bones

I cannot stand when people use mountain gorillas as an example of finding new animals. They never seem to realize that eastern lowland had been known about for hundreds of years in Europe and even longer in Africa.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

Just a word to say about scientific pursuit:

some scientific discoveries were made by people that first had a theory, a theory that had little evidence - if any, to go on. IS the earth really flat and the center of the universe, or do evidences that suggest otherwise mean that the earth is round and revolves around the sun as examples.

Now all the while that those new theories were *unproven*, should the serious scientific minds that dreamt them up be called a charlatan? - an idiot??  - all because he speaks before he has proven his point? How the hell can science operate in that kind of climate!?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, freetoroam said:

Ditto stereologist on this one.

Care to list them ParaG? 

I'm not sure what you are expecting in a list form but all serious claims by serious people are always worthy of attention and consideration (like for one, the Patterson/Gimlin film).

The only thing I was responding to was the OP question: 

Is cryptozoology a legitimate science?

 

Even if I wasn't a believer in the likeliness of some of these things I would still call the serious investigation 'legitimate science'.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
42 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Just a word to say about scientific pursuit:

some scientific discoveries were made by people that first had a theory, a theory that had little evidence - if any, to go on. IS the earth really flat and the center of the universe, or do evidences that suggest otherwise mean that the earth is round and revolves around the sun as examples.

Now all the while that those new theories were *unproven*, should the serious scientific minds that dreamt them up be called a charlatan? - an idiot??  - all because he speaks before he has proven his point? How the hell can science operate in that kind of climate!?

 

 

That's not really what happens.

New theories are created because there is evidence suggesting problems with current theories. 

Take the flat Earth idea, which is pre-science of course. What people knew as they started to travel is that the stars were no longer at the same position. How is that possible if the world is flat? Does everything revolve about the Earth? The retrograde motion of planets led to complications of the crystal sphere idea. 

A charlatan on the other hand is someone with a theory that is clearly in defiance of the evidence. Promoters of a flat earth are charlatans. The evidence is overwhelming. Promoters of the Moon landing hoaxes are charlatans. The evidence is overwhelming. 

Your idea of science operating in a climate of distrust is not what happens. There are plenty of new ideas proposed every day. That is what leads to experiments. These new ideas are created to test current understandings and to extend current understandings. One of the more profound changes in science was the inkling that things were not right with classical physics. Something was not right and a number of papers were written which proposed a new thinking - energy was distributed in fixed units called quanta.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
21 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I'm not sure what you are expecting in a list form but all serious claims by serious people are always worthy of attention and consideration (like for one, the Patterson/Gimlin film).

The only thing I was responding to was the OP question: 

Is cryptozoology a legitimate science?

 

Even if I wasn't a believer in the likeliness of some of these things I would still call the serious investigation 'legitimate science'.

Thanks. I expected you to continue with some vague comment but you did provide one thing you think was credible.

I agree the PG film needed to be examined. It was and it seems that it did not lead to finding a new specie of large mammal in North America.

Was it credible at the time of its release? To some degree. Was it given consideration. Yes. :tu:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

That's not really what happens.

New theories are created because there is evidence suggesting problems with current theories. 

Take the flat Earth idea, which is pre-science of course. What people knew as they started to travel is that the stars were no longer at the same position. How is that possible if the world is flat? Does everything revolve about the Earth? The retrograde motion of planets led to complications of the crystal sphere idea. 

A charlatan on the other hand is someone with a theory that is clearly in defiance of the evidence. Promoters of a flat earth are charlatans. The evidence is overwhelming. Promoters of the Moon landing hoaxes are charlatans. The evidence is overwhelming. 

I don't think you have to lecture me on what a charlatan is. I was not suggesting at all that people who are peddling bull are to be given respect. 

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

Your idea of science operating in a climate of distrust is not what happens.

Really !?  Galileo was convicted of heresy because he espoused the ideas of Copernicus and spent the rest of his days under house arrest. History is replete of such injustices to people who simply dared to think outside the box. And you can say that it is justified when said thinker is just plain wrong but I disagree *especially* when "proven wrong" is only conjecture by antagonists due to lack of evidences by claimant, ie "Alien visitation to planet earth", which no one can disprove, regardless the blaring roar of the antagonists.

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

There are plenty of new ideas proposed every day. That is what leads to experiments. These new ideas are created to test current understandings and to extend current understandings. One of the more profound changes in science was the inkling that things were not right with classical physics. Something was not right and a number of papers were written which proposed a new thinking - energy was distributed in fixed units called quanta.

Quantum physics is proven as were the evidences that Newtonian physics did not work in certain conditions so the proponents that said "something is wrong" had a basis for their complaint and their complaint led to redefining particle motion under these sub atomic circumstances. That is how it should work.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minimalists
On 8/21/2019 at 12:01 AM, 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?

In a word No!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56

This discussion reminds me of a hilarious book by Kim Stanley Robinson called Escape from Katmandu.   The main character is a biologist.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
4 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I don't think you have to lecture me on what a charlatan is. I was not suggesting at all that people who are peddling bull are to be given respect. 

Really !?  Galileo was convicted of heresy because he espoused the ideas of Copernicus and spent the rest of his days under house arrest. History is replete of such injustices to people who simply dared to think outside the box. And you can say that it is justified when said thinker is just plain wrong but I disagree *especially* when "proven wrong" is only conjecture by antagonists due to lack of evidences by claimant, ie "Alien visitation to planet earth", which no one can disprove, regardless the blaring roar of the antagonists.

Quantum physics is proven as were the evidences that Newtonian physics did not work in certain conditions so the proponents that said "something is wrong" had a basis for their complaint and their complaint led to redefining particle motion under these sub atomic circumstances. That is how it should work.

 

Really. Galileo was convicted by a religious group, not scientists. His problem was that he invented the telescope and saw 3 things that provided evidence that the Aristotelian system was wrong. Those doing studies knew he was right. 

  1. He tracked a comet and it was not orbiting the Earth
  2. He saw the moons of Jupiter and they were orbiting Jupiter, not the Earth.
  3. He observed the phases of Venus which showed that Venus was not orbiting the Earth.

The fact that he got into trouble with a religious group happens outside of science too. People were persecuted for their political and religious ideas.

History is not replete with injustices to people who simply dared to think outside of the box when it comes to science pursuits.

You also have to remember that science as a subject was forming around the time of Galileo. Remember that your original statement was about scientific pursuit and scientific discovery. If you want to pick a modern example, say in the last 100 years please do so.  You mention "Alien visitation to planet earth", but that is not science. That is not a scientific theory and certainly not a scientific discovery. 

You might be talking about non-scientific efforts by people that also do science. That happens more often than you think. Look at Pauling and his vitamin mega-dosing. Great physicist but off the wall when it came to health. There are plenty of such people that do well in one area of study and then lose it completely in some other subject. They, and others believing in these things, rely on an appeal to authority and not evidence.

Consider Fleischmann and Pons. They ended up with egg on their faces because they went outside of the system to hold a press conference. Had they stuck to the scientific groups they would not have been embarrassed to learn that they had made basic mistakes. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Really. Galileo was convicted by a religious group, not scientists. His problem was that he invented the telescope and saw 3 things that provided evidence that the Aristotelian system was wrong. Those doing studies knew he was right. 

  1. He tracked a comet and it was not orbiting the Earth
  2. He saw the moons of Jupiter and they were orbiting Jupiter, not the Earth.
  3. He observed the phases of Venus which showed that Venus was not orbiting the Earth.

The fact that he got into trouble with a religious group happens outside of science too. People were persecuted for their political and religious ideas.

The church *was* science at one time and in fact, the Vatican still to this day has its Pontifical Academy of Sciences, as well as it's own Observatory Vatican Obseratory HomePage link  but you have drifted from the point.

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

History is not replete with injustices to people who simply dared to think outside of the box when it comes to science pursuits.

You also have to remember that science as a subject was forming around the time of Galileo. Remember that your original statement was about scientific pursuit and scientific discovery. If you want to pick a modern example, say in the last 100 years please do so.  You mention "Alien visitation to planet earth", but that is not science. That is not a scientific theory and certainly not a scientific discovery. 

Many scientists are involved with the search for earth twins in other parts of our galaxy, further, SETI is trying very hard to bring in signals from extra terrestrial sources that would be deemed "intelligent", also for purposes of establishing ETs. I don't know why investigations to see if UFOs are transport of ETs would not be considered scientific pursuit.

But again, you digress.

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

You might be talking about non-scientific efforts by people that also do science. That happens more often than you think. Look at Pauling and his vitamin mega-dosing. Great physicist but off the wall when it came to health. There are plenty of such people that do well in one area of study and then lose it completely in some other subject. They, and others believing in these things, rely on an appeal to authority and not evidence.

Consider Fleischmann and Pons. They ended up with egg on their faces because they went outside of the system to hold a press conference. Had they stuck to the scientific groups they would not have been embarrassed to learn that they had made basic mistakes. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
9 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

The church *was* science at one time and in fact, the Vatican still to this day has its Pontifical Academy of Sciences, as well as it's own Observatory Vatican Obseratory HomePage link  but you have drifted from the point.

Many scientists are involved with the search for earth twins in other parts of our galaxy, further, SETI is trying very hard to bring in signals from extra terrestrial sources that would be deemed "intelligent", also for purposes of establishing ETs. I don't know why investigations to see if UFOs are transport of ETs would not be considered scientific pursuit.

But again, you digress.

 

No. The Church was not science. Science is not who is in charge. Just because the Church has been interested in science does not mean anything other than an interest in science. Science is a process that was started in the 17th century. That is after Galileo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

If you take a look at what people were doing before that you will see that the earlier forms are not called science. They are called natural philosophy. It isn't the same and you can check the following link to learn how it differed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

Here you bring in UFOs into a thread in the cryptozoology forum and you suggest I digress. How cute.

The Church is not science. Science is a method that exists outside of institutions. 

Now you digressed by mentioning "Alien visitation to planet earth". It is not science and is not conducted as a scientific pursuit. It's about story telling. It is not about creating hypotheses and testing. It's about making up stories.

The same sort of thinking happens in cryptozoology. Consider the utter failure to get anything that is bigfoot, or Nessie, or Champ, or the Kraken (thinking of the original idea here), or gigantic snakes, or dinosaurs, or thunderbirds, etc. The lack of evidence today or in the fossil record suggests it does not exist. What does a pseudoscience do? They invent excuses. They do not refine their methods. They do not explore the possibility that their idea has to be rejected.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

No. The Church was not science. Science is not who is in charge. 

The church ran science.

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

If you take a look at what people were doing before that you will see that the earlier forms are not called science. They are called natural philosophy. It isn't the same and you can check the following link to learn how it differed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

You like arguing for the sake of it, don't you

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

Here you bring in UFOs into a thread in the cryptozoology forum and you suggest I digress. How cute.

The Church is not science. Science is a method that exists outside of institutions. 

The church ran science in europe

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

Now you digressed by mentioning "Alien visitation to planet earth". It is not science and is not conducted as a scientific pursuit. 

It is science. if you set up a hypothesis and set out to prove it , that's science. you tell stories.

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

The same sort of thinking happens in cryptozoology. Consider the utter failure to get anything that is bigfoot, or Nessie, or Champ, or the Kraken (thinking of the original idea here), or gigantic snakes, or dinosaurs, or thunderbirds, etc. The lack of evidence today or in the fossil record suggests it does not exist. What does a pseudoscience do? They invent excuses. They do not refine their methods. They do not explore the possibility that their idea has to be rejected.

Many scientists set up goals to achieve,, to prove something, and fail. Tachyon particles is one such example.

 

Share this post


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

The church ran science.

You like arguing for the sake of it, don't you

The church ran science in europe

It is science. if you set up a hypothesis and set out to prove it , that's science. you tell stories.

Many scientists set up goals to achieve,, to prove something, and fail. Tachyon particles is one such example.

 

I am pointing out that what we think of science is a rather new invention. It begins in the 1600s and would really take on its current form in the 1800s. 

The Church ran many things including those involved in science. Let's not move the goalposts. Your original claim is in post #30.

Quote

Now all the while that those new theories were *unproven*, should the serious scientific minds that dreamt them up be called a charlatan? - an idiot??  - all because he speaks before he has proven his point? How the hell can science operate in that kind of climate!?

I took this to mean when science as we know it was in effect. What people often do is what you did. You pick someone from 400 years ago when the institutions in charge were burning people at the stake for whatever they deemed to be heresy. Galieleo was not considered to be a charlatan or idiot. I would say your choice of an example is incorrect.

In post #32 I very nicely pointed out that your ideas expressed in post #30 did not match up with anything happening. I pointed out flat earthers and moon landing hoax people as charlatans.

In post #34 you used the example of Copernicus and did not show that he was considered to be an idiot or a charlatan. Rather you pointed out that he defied the Church. You did not point out that he had an idea that new or unproven. And you seemed to have missed the point that QM was developed like so many others theories - there was evidence which showed problems with an established theory. The same was true with Galileo and he had the evidence. In fact in post #37 I pointed out the evidence he had collected that showed a geocentric universe was incorrect.

In that same post I gave you a very good example of a persecuted pair of scientists and why they were persecuted. It was what they did, not that they had an unproven idea.

In post #38 you chose to be argumentative instead of learning something. You just like to argue for the sake of argument instead of learning something new. There was the off topic comment about SETI which has no one being persecuted for some new unproven idea does it? You even dismiss the Pons and Fleischmann issue which were two scientists that were persecuted for their unproven idea because they went to the news people instead of going through the normal process of peer review. They took the idea directly to news outlets and then the news outlets reported how their idea was  wrong.

In post #39 I attempted to help you out by pointing out that you chose an incorrect example when science as we know it did not exist.

I even tried to bring this issue back to the topic of cryptozoology.

Again, the Church was not natural philosophy.  It may have controlled natural philosophy, but as we see people that they persecuted such as Galileo that they control was not as strong as people might suggest. Their reactions were just that - actions after the fact.

And here is where the difference between science and the natural philosophy of Galileo's time come into play. You wrote "It is science. if you set up a hypothesis and set out to prove it , that's science." That's the modern version of science. It is important to point out that Galileo was not operating under the modern method of science.

Alien visitation is not a scientific pursuit. Why don't you open a thread in the appropriate forum and tell us all about the hypotheses and testing involving alien visitation are being done. I'd love to see some information on that if you have anything to report. In response to a comment on cryptozoologists you bring up the off topic issue of tachyons.

There seems to be a definite problem keeping the comments to the issue of cryptozoology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt221

If your a crytozoologist I'm guessing it's a real science 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I am pointing out that what we think of science is a rather new invention. It begins in the 1600s and would really take on its current form in the 1800s. 

Your 1600's "line in the sand" may include Galileo, but it appears that you think Archimedes, Hippocrates, Euclid and many other notables, are not really scientists.  This tells me I am talking with the wrong person. Moving the goal posts so that you can find fault with my example is total bullcrap.

I used as an example of abuse to scientists thinking outside the box, as Galileo. I am not wrong about that and your continued rebuttal of this issue using  questionable "facts" tells me this sub thread is a total waste of time.

4 hours ago, stereologist said:

 

the rest is total flipping, flopping, and generally arguing for the sake of arguing, moving the goal post because the thrust of what I sad cannot be found incorrect, but spam - you sure do. You are "debating" for the sake of causing argument, nothing more.

toodles.

Share this post


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

I would argue that Astrology is not a science because astrologists never seem to do research to see what causes the affects they cite and they don't seem to change if science shows some of their beliefs wrong.

But Cryptozoology? People have theories, and those theories may not ever pan out to be true but that never is the criteria for determining whether an endeavor is science or not. It's a science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Your 1600's "line in the sand" may include Galileo, but it appears that you think Archimedes, Hippocrates, Euclid and many other notables, are not really scientists.  This tells me I am talking with the wrong person. Moving the goal posts so that you can find fault with my example is total bullcrap.

I used as an example of abuse to scientists thinking outside the box, as Galileo. I am not wrong about that and your continued rebuttal of this issue using  questionable "facts" tells me this sub thread is a total waste of time.

the rest is total flipping, flopping, and generally arguing for the sake of arguing, moving the goal post because the thrust of what I sad cannot be found incorrect, but spam - you sure do. You are "debating" for the sake of causing argument, nothing more.

toodles.

They didn't do science as we know science today. A good example of this is that the Greeks did not do experiments. You probably didn't know that.

This is not moving the goal posts. If anyone has moved the goal posts it is you because you have no idea when science started or who did science as you think science is done.

Galileo was not thinking outside of the box. He was using a new invention called the telescope which her invented. Those initial observations showed him that the geocentric model was demonstrably wrong. He was well aware of two competing models and he now had the strong evidence needed as I pointed out in an earlier post. If you want to support anything you stated then please show us a scientist that disputed his findings. I certainly am aware of mathematicians that differed with his ideas on infinitesimals. 

You have the choice to learn something and all you are doing is whining about being helped out. This childish whining about arguing about the sake of arguing and mentioning UFOs and such does nothing to correct your errors.

The fact of the matter is that Galileo was NOT deemed a charlatan or idiot by other scientists. His ideas were accepted as correct. He was set upon by non-scientists and religious groups.

 

Here is what you originally posted:

Quote

Now all the while that those new theories were *unproven*, should the serious scientific minds that dreamt them up be called a charlatan? - an idiot??  - all because he speaks before he has proven his point? How the hell can science operate in that kind of climate!?

You've done nothing to support that claim. What seems to be lacking here is an understanding that scientists are constantly thinking up new ideas and testing. It is the norm to try out new ideas, what you call unproven. That is how science operates, not the mistaken world you think happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
11 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

I would argue that Astrology is not a science because astrologists never seem to do research to see what causes the affects they cite and they don't seem to change if science shows some of their beliefs wrong.

But Cryptozoology? People have theories, and those theories may not ever pan out to be true but that never is the criteria for determining whether an endeavor is science or not. It's a science.

Tat's not true. Astrology does not create hypotheses that they test. I am not aware of cryptozoologists doing that either. Hunting for evidence is not science. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iilaa'mpuul'xem
1 hour ago, stereologist said:

Tat's not true. Astrology does not create hypotheses that they test. I am not aware of cryptozoologists doing that either. Hunting for evidence is not science. 

Scientists hunt for evidence all the time... that's how things are discovered or found... Only recently a group of Scientists went in to hunt for evidence on cause of Notre Dame fire?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 hours ago, Iilaa'mpuul'xem said:

Scientists hunt for evidence all the time... that's how things are discovered or found... Only recently a group of Scientists went in to hunt for evidence on cause of Notre Dame fire?

But scientists looking for evidence of an event are not necessarily doing science. Today we often misunderstand engineering as science.

What happens in almost every science fiction novel is really technological fiction. There are a few like Gravity's Rainbow that include a fictional science. In the rest of the genre it is a fictional technology.

Finding the cause of the Notre Dame fire is applied science or applied engineering. It is not science.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don Caesar

Cryptozoology could use a much needed shot in the arm - another major shock discovery of coelacanth proportions is required.

  • Haha 1

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.