Not all Cryptozoology is woo.

[BenBurch]

MOST Cryptozoology is woo.

That is certain.

But there is a residue of stories of strange beasts that eventually WERE found to exist.

Usually these are not stories of really bizarre creatures like Nessie, but more like the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker; The creature is plausible (in this case it once existed) and there are some credible reports that one might have been seen or heard.

But I also think some of the more "out there" reports, like Mokele-Mbembe are compelling enough to at least go look. I might be biased here because I once had the opportunity to meet the late Dr. Roy Mackel, and he was not looking for woo, he was looking for an animal.

So, I guess what I am saying is that I am very uncomfortable lumping Cryptozoology in with believing in ET UFOs or Dowsing. It's just fundamentally unlike those things in that there is good reason to think that there ARE still undiscovered creatures, some even macroscopic, on the planet.

Comments?

 

[ponderingturtle]

But I also think some of the more "out there" reports, like Mokele-Mbembe are compelling enough to at least go look. I might be biased here because I once had the opportunity to meet the late Dr. Roy Mackel, and he was not looking for woo, he was looking for an animal.

The people looking for bigfoot and nessie are looking for real animals to. Well maybe not those who think bigfoot is an extradimensional entity that interacts with this dimension only weakly.

 

[DavidS]

I'd rephrase: Much presented as cryptozoology is woo; that is certain. "No true cryptozoology" is woo.

That is, cryptozoological questions are amenable to scientific methods of inquiry; falsifiable hypotheses can be formulated and tested, etc. There's nothing woo about rationally investigating the possible existence of field mice, colossal squid, ivory-billed woodpeckers, Nessie, or left-handed pink unicorns prone to overbidding at pinochle. To be sure, those span quite a range of gullibillity and optimism, but woo-free scientific inquiry remains possible until proof of non-existence is found.

Where that's inapplicable, the -ology suffix is less warranted and bearing the woo nature seems more likely.

So, I guess what I am saying is that I am very uncomfortable lumping cryptozoology in with believing in Nessie or Champ or Chupacabra or unicorns preferring pinochle to bridge. It's just fundamentally unlike the latter in that scientific investigation permits falsification of hypotheses that might or might not be worthy of belief.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'd rephrase: Much presented as cryptozoology is woo; that is certain. "No true cryptozoology" is woo.

That is, cryptozoological questions are amenable to scientific methods of inquiry; falsifiable hypotheses can be formulated and tested, etc. There's nothing woo about rationally investigating the possible existence of field mice, colossal squid, ivory-billed woodpeckers, Nessie, or left-handed pink unicorns prone to overbidding at pinochle. To be sure, those span quite a range of gullibillity and optimism, but woo-free scientific inquiry remains possible until proof of non-existence is found.

You do realize that proof of nonexistence is a logical impossibility right? All you can do is failure to present evidence indicative of the claim.

 

[DavidS]

You do realize that proof of nonexistence is a logical impossibility right? All you can do is failure to present evidence indicative of the claim.

You do realize that's an often stated but untrue assertion, right? All I have to do is prove existence of logically incompatible circumstances.

 

[Jeff Corkern]

Sure. Check out "coelacanth", a primitive species of fish found to still be existing. They had million-year-old fossils of this thing before they ever had the real fish.

I wouldn't automatically rank anything as "automatically impossible" just because it's strange or seems improbable to me. I'll believe anything---if you can prove it. If you can prove it by the rules of logic, reason, and science.


You want to convince me of UFO's, it's easy---just land a flying saucer on my front doorstep, have a little green man pop out, and you just made me a believer.

You want to convince me of Bigfoot or whatever, just do the King Kong thing, capture it and drag it to New York. Just keep it away from the Empire State Building and Fay Wray.

 

[BenBurch]

You do realize that's an often stated but untrue assertion, right? All I have to do is prove existence of logically incompatible circumstances.

That's true. If you for example drain Loch Ness, and find no Nessie, then there wasn't one. And usually a nonexistence proof does wind up being as difficult to achieve as draining the Loch.

 

[blutoski]

That's true. If you for example drain Loch Ness, and find no Nessie, then there wasn't one. And usually a nonexistence proof does wind up being as difficult to achieve as draining the Loch.

That wouldn't even solve it for the true believers. Maybe Nessie's magic? Invisible? Built a secret trap-door and hid in an underwater passageway until the whole thing blew over?

 

[Normal Dude]

As far I know, when it deals with legitimate subjects, it's simply called "Zoology".

 

[CFLarsen]

But I also think some of the more "out there" reports, like Mokele-Mbembe are compelling enough to at least go look.

Hunting for Mokele Mbembe.

 

[Plasmid]

Bad argument removed. How can I delete this post?

 

[DavidS]

As far I know, when it deals with legitimate subjects, it's simply called "Zoology".

That would span the study of animals known to exist, but animals not known to exist are a different matter. The question of their existence would be the province of cryptozoology.

 

[Cuddles]

That would span the study of animals known to exist, but animals not known to exist are a different matter. The question of their existence would be the province of cryptozoology.

Not really. Zoologists have always been the ones who went out and discovered new species, often (usually?) ones that weren't thought to exist, or even expected to exist.

Cryptozoology is basically like alternative medicine. When it works, it's just medicine. It's only the things that either don't work or have no evidence to support them that are refered to as "alternative".

If you study animals in a scientific way, you are a zoologist, regardless of whether your study is looking at something we already know about or looking for something entirely new. It is only when unsupported, or just plain silly, claims are made that it becomes crypto.

 

[Normal Dude]

That would span the study of animals known to exist, but animals not known to exist are a different matter. The question of their existence would be the province of cryptozoology.

So if I am looking for new genes in an animal species, am I a cryptogeneticist?

 

[Magic 9-Ball]

Not really. Zoologists have always been the ones who went out and discovered new species, often (usually?) ones that weren't thought to exist, or even expected to exist.

Cryptozoology is basically like alternative medicine. When it works, it's just medicine. It's only the things that either don't work or have no evidence to support them that are refered to as "alternative".

I’d certainly agree. Cyptozoologists always use the coelacanth, Okapi, or the Gorilla as highlights. However, it’s not apparent any was found by a searching ‘crypto’. Indeed, the coelacanth wasn’t initially found by someone who was looking for it, it had been there all along in the fish market. It was just someone who noticed the odd looking fish, and contacted someone who might know what it was.

 

[DavidS]

OK, so I wrote imprecisely. It happens.

Don't get me wrong, I think folks who claim (e.g.) Nessie exists without supporting evidence aren't being very rational. My point is that people who seek evidence for (e.g.) Nessie's existence may or may not be doing so scientifically. As regards Nessie, IMO more than infinitesimal expectation of success is overly optimistic, but that's a different question.

Not really. Zoologists have always been the ones who went out and discovered new species, often (usually?) ones that weren't thought to exist, or even expected to exist.

OK. The distinction I hoped to make is not that finding something that wasn't thought to exist is cryptozoology or isn't zoology, but that looking for something that isn't known to exist but might may warrant the cryptozoology label while much zoological study does not.

Cryptozoology is basically like alternative medicine. When it works, it's just medicine.

I disagree, in that valid cryptozoological study is different from "just" zoology similarly to how endocrinology differs from "just" medicine. It's a label for a specialization

It's only the things that either don't work or have no evidence to support them that are refered to as "alternative".

I do not equivocate "crypto" with "alternative", ineffective, or evidence-free. Nor do I agree that failure to successfully verifiy hypotheses (which is what I presume you mean by "don't work or have no evidence to support them") is sufficient cause for tarring with the broad "alternative" brush. Scientific inquiry requires falsifiable hypotheses, not that all/most/any are never falsified. Evidence-free claims or reliance on predictions derived from disproven, untested (or "inadequately" tested), or untestable hypotheses is what's worthy of your derisive "alternative" label.

Whether continued testing of hypotheses similar to many that have been falsified or not successfully supported by evidence is a sensible application of effort is another matter.

After a century or so of looking for Nessie without success, I too would get bored, decide there's no such critter, and get on with my life. I would see little value in doing yet another sonar search or staffing continuous hilltop watches or other stuff too much like other things that haven't been successful yet. I'd consider folks who keep looking for Nessie evidence to be wasting their time and resources, but ultimately that's a value judgement for them.

That's different from considering folks who continue to assert without evidence that Nessie does exist to be playing with a short deck.

If you study animals in a scientific way, you are a zoologist, regardless of whether your study is looking at something we already know about or looking for something entirely new.

<shrug> OK. My position is that applies even if you never, ever find what you're looking for, a long as you're looking in a scientific way.

It is only when unsupported, or just plain silly, claims are made that it becomes crypto.

Here is where we disagree: It's the missing or hard to find or obscured nature that "becomes crypto". Unsupported or just plain silly claims are just that.

I don't dispute that much of the latter tries to hide lack of -ology sword behind the crypto- shield. Call those "woo" or "alternative" or whatever.

 

[BenBurch]

So, then when a zoologist is presented with folk tales about an as-yet-unknown beast, and he collates those, finds the similarities and differences, develops a hypothesis about its habits and locale, and then goes to look for it, he is acting on woo?

I don't think so.

And what would you call what he is doing then except Cryptozoology?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As far I know, when it deals with legitimate subjects, it's simply called "Zoology".

Good point.

I remember conversing with zoologists once upon a time, and the term "cryptozoology" came up. Apparently, it actually has a real meaning that has nothing to do with finding living fossils or legendary critters. I've completely forgotten that meaning, though. IIRC, the conversation was on biogeography, but I honestly don't remember how it was used.

Anyone?

ETA: I could also be completely misremembering this. . . .

 

[Ysidro]

Has a self identifying cryptozoologist every found something? Or have all the discoveries been by others? Have cryptozoologists ever gone looking for something that had eventually been discovered by others?

 

[Normal Dude]

Has anyone met a credible zoology researcher or institution that uses the label cryptozoology (ist) to describe themselves? I maintain that it is a label primarily used by pseudoscience because it sounds cool... even if the subjects it's definition may entail are not pseudoscience.