Cryptozoology-Science?

[Darwin]

I´m suspecting that everyone reading this thread may not even be aware of what cryptozoology really is-"the study of hidden animals".
Involving seemingly mythical creatures like yeti and loch ness monster.
The thing is that since we are talking about "hidden" animals (either faked or real ones) there is little to observe,little to do with scientific method.
What we have is rumors,heresay,"testimonies" and foggy photos.
To make it short,what do you think of this?

 

[Dancing David]

I liked the guy on real people who strapped a pair of carved boards on his feet and faked Bigfeet tracks.

I think that they are like ghosts and hypnogogic to some extent.

I was in the woods last years where a beaver was taking a stroll, it was just past sunset, I would have sworn that booger was a bear.

Peace

 

[Captain_Snort]

I have sen some very scientific methods used in cryptozoology and also some way out woo-woo methods.

Lets say its branch that will always attract the oddball element.

Here in the UK, there is growing evidence of large cats, several carcasses found etc. but our largest native cat is the Scottish Wildcat, not much larger than your average tabby. The existance of these big cats is not recognised by the powers that be, but despite that several police forces have had armed police staking out likely areas for them. I believe the existance, or lack, of these would fall into cryptozoology.

 

[daver]

I think that there are large creatures (dog-sized and bigger) that are unkown to science (or similarly, thought to be extinct but still extant).

There are probably more of these in the ocean than on the land.

I think that most of these will be boring, like the new species of jellyfish that was just discovered. I don't believe there are any sasquatch or yeti or unicorns or dragons or great sea serpents or loch ness or crater lake monsters or merpeople.

Some of the above are more likely than others; i don't believe in them mainly because they don't seem reasonable. However, the world is not always a reasonable place; some of them could exist.

The existance of one of these creatures would be extraordinary, and as such, would require extraordinary proof. Due to the history of hoaxes and misinterpretations, the evidence is gong to have to be truly extraordinary to be convincing.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I usually list Cryptozoology in my woo woo categories when discussing what makes someone skeptical, but there's a world of difference between someone who is looking to see if there are any Thylacines that somehow found a niche and escaped the declared extinction of the species and someone who is convinced that phosphorescent pterosaurs are flying around in New Guinea.

 

[Darwin]

Thanks for taking time.

Maybe one could invent "cryptoentomology".You might discover a few more species shaking a random tree in Africa.

 

[Hellcat]

There are unknown species being found still so there is something to it.

As for Nessie who knows?

Probably a large over fed fish or the most entertaining hoax.

 

[JamesM]

As for Nessie who knows?

Probably a large over fed fish or the most entertaining hoax.

Or neither. I highly recommend (if you can find it) Michel Meurger's "Lake Monster Traditions" for anyone interested in the cultural baggage that surrounds the concept of the lake monster across the world. It's a highly useful warning to anyone seeking to validate modern day claims of the existence of these creatures by referral to older legends.

Basically, Meurger argues that all these older "sightings" occur firmly within mythological and legendary contexts, with the monster sighting occurring amidst a whole plethora of oddities and portents, most of which would be dismissed as not literally real. In which case, there is no textual justification to pluck the monster sighting from the realms of mysticism and give it objective reality.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Cryptozoology is potentially a science. When scientific methods are used to collect and evaluate evidence of undiscovered animals, it is a science. And it is a science that continues to yield results (although not always practiced by cryptozoologists). New species are discovered on a fairly regular basis, a couple of years ago, an entirely new phyllum was discovered.

Most of these critters are near-microscopic, or smaller, but once in a while something larger appears.

I think an important discipline for a serious cryptozoologist is debunking, that is, detecting the improbable claims.

Hans