What is your opinion of Cryptidzoology. 
Not just Bigfoot and Nessie but the whole "Science" in general
Remember that some animals thought to be Cryptids have been found to exist such as Coelacanth
Is it a viable area to research? 
What Cryptids do you think exist?
What do you think about the people who report these sightings? Crazy, attention seekers, mistaken ID etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
I know I quoted wiki and I apologize 

Tags: Animals, Cryptid

Views: 598

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Brendan, rhere is a lot of hoaxes about this area there has never been any real proof presented but it makes good stories the same as alien abductions etc.see you later joko.

 

Some creatures probably should be given up on. Most of the them more than likely do not exist. Of course, without those that search for cryptids the ones that do exist may never be discovered. The people that do choose to devote their time to finding one, while not my cup of tea, are welcome to try as it is their choice to do so. I'm sure many of them are aware their quests of discovery could just as likely be fools' errands, so I say they accept the consequences of their own choices. The more well-known cryptids, I think, don't exist. Maybe some of the litany of others I'm sure there are could exist. On the people that report sightings, I think you've answered it already. If they didn't really see a cryptid, the reasons probably run the gamut.

I would hate to think there would ever come a time when every weird and unexplained phenomena was debunked or proven untrue. So much entertainment has come from them that I think it would be a shame if they were all exposed.

I Want To Believe! - The X-Files.

What is your opinion of Cryptidzoology. Not just Bigfoot and Nessie but the whole "Science" in general. Remember that some animals thought to be Cryptids have been found to exist such as Coelacanth. Is it a viable area to research? What Cryptids do you think exist?

Cryptidzoology is a crackpot pseudoscience as far as the popular applications of it: the search for animals missing from the fossil record, not known to be related to any known species, and not having any independently verifiable evidence to exist at all.

This separates bigfoot, unicorns, chupacabras, and Nessie from "living fossil" animals that have no known living relatives or were previously thought extinct, such as the coelacanth, elephant shrew, red panda, and the okapi. The latter group has evidence galore. The former group does not.

That is what kills any pretense that cryptidzoology is science: lack of credible evidence, lack of verifiability, eschewing the scientific method, and (these are big ones) a tendency toward secrecy, credulity, and acceptance of questionable "evidence", sometimes accompanied by claims of unfairness and persecution when others point out these shortcomings.

What do you think about the people who report these sightings? Crazy, attention seekers, mistaken ID etc

All of the above, plus hoaxers and profiteers.

not 100% sure what the top two are but the bottom 2 where originally both cryptids, since then they have been found to be real the silverback was also originally a cryptid.

not 100% sure what the top two are but the bottom 2 where originally both cryptids, since then they have been found to be real the silverback was also originally a cryptid.

Agreed. To clarify, I'm drawing a distinction between two aspects of cryptozoology (which I mistakenly called cryptidzoology earlier).

The first covers evidence-based, scholarly, scientific endeavours: the search for animals rarely seen or animals not seen in so long they're believed extinct. This can include searching for the North American Passenger Pigeon, or the source of unexplained animal droppings, or the source of an uncategorized animal pelt in a museum collection, or finding the last few pygmy three-toed sloths. (Lowering a camera into an abyssal trench at the bottom of the ocean hoping to find new species? Without knowing what you're looking for I would call that exploration. I suppose cryptozoology could stretch to cover it as well, although in the literature I've reviewed I haven't run across cryptozoology used to reference blind searching.)

The second covers what I referred to earlier as "popular" cryptozoology: non-evidence based, unscientific, overly credulous searches for long-lost animals like Bigfoot, unicorns, the chupacabra, Nessie, and the Jersey Devil, to name a few. These hunts for long-expected additions to the animal kingdom go on and on, sometimes for decades, without ever turning up a shred of verifiable evidence. Meanwhile, the stories and hoaxes keep on popping up, or the animal changes size, shape, color or even becomes bipedal (depending on who sights it). This is the crackpot pseudoscience I was referring to.

The crackpot pseudoscience is a distraction that goes in with sightings of aliens.  I do see a valid field of research in trying to extrapolate the unknown based on what we do know and possibly considering 'strange sightings' that stand up to at least some scrutiny.

Predicting the sorts of fossils we might expect to find, given gaps in the fossil record, might also fall into this category - but I'm primarily interested in the potential marine biology that is still so poorly probed.

All animals zoological science has documented were cryptids beforehand, were they not? So I don't get why a separate "science" or "subscience" needs a name. It seems to me zoology can do the job on its own without an internal or external specialty full of guys specializing in chasing new or legendary or rumored species.

If cryptozoology makes sense then astronomers looking for new stars are cryptoastronomers, right? We'd have cryptogeologists, cryptosociologists, cryptocosmetologists, etc.

But cryptozoologists could wear cool hats!

Like this one

Was Crocodile Dundee a cryptologist?

RSS

Forum

Torture Report release today

Started by Unseen in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by Virgil 29 minutes ago. 106 Replies

Why do we tolerate this?

Started by Belle Rose in Crime and Punishment. Last reply by Belle Rose 49 minutes ago. 18 Replies

East German Shame

Started by Davis Goodman in Law, Trials, and Decisions. Last reply by Simon Mathews 4 hours ago. 10 Replies

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Erock68la 7 hours ago. 200 Replies

Blog Posts

Pabst Blue Ribbon to the rescue!

Posted by Ed on December 15, 2014 at 9:33pm 0 Comments

Finally, a cool billboard in Arkansas!

Posted by Ed on December 15, 2014 at 8:21am 2 Comments

Atheist Sites

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service