Cryptozoologist Finds
- Thread starter cleusk
- Start date
dcpandafan
Well-Known Member
Let them dream!
What's the blatant disdain for? Personal bad experiences with bigfoot huggers and Nessie nerds?
Ha ha, good one!
I always joke that if I had the chance, I'd convince Animal Planet into giving me a show to host about hunting cryptids, but it's really an excuse for me to go on vacations. Be all like, hey, a sea monster was spotted near this resort in Hawaii! Lets go investigate!
Anyway, yeah, cryptozoologists are like UFO hunters. They only see what they want to see and as a result, aren't likely to find anything. Most of the time, they seem to think that everything is evidence of the thing that they're looking for. I mean, even if I did believe in bigfoot, I wouldn't assume that every pile of poop in the forest or every strange sound in the night came from him, ya know? Ronaldo Fryman epitomizes this when he said "Truth is a feeling in your gut that you know is true! Truth is searching for anything that proves you're right no matter how small, and holding on to that, no matter what".
Don't agree ! Okapi and Congo peacock are the best examples of species of which evidence was found before the were actualy discovered and it were "cryptozoologists which found them later in real !
jbnbsn99
Well-Known Member
Neither the Okapi or the Congo Peafowl were discovered by cryptozoologists though. They were properly named by real scientists. Cryptozoology is by definition a pseudoscience based in belief. The vast majority of American cryptos are actually creationists trying to disprove evolution. Many use science and techniques improperly, cherry-pick their data, and none publish in peer reviewed journals.
I've never heard about American cryptozoologists being predominantly creationist. That's, uh, interesting. The ones I see usually pretend to be scientific.
And yeah, I hate when they use examples like the okapi or coelacanth as proof that they could be right. Don't try and take credit for something that real scientists have done! Yes, there are lots of undiscovered animals out there, but I'll be surprised if a cryptozoologist finds and describes one. I was really into this junk when I was in middle school, trust me when I say they only see what they want to see.
I guess we both use different definations of cryptozoologist. For me a cryptozoologist is a person ( scientist or not ) which gets a clue of a species still unknown to science and starts to search for this species and in this case Johnston ( who heared stories and got a piece of skin of an unknown species ) and Chapin ( who got an unknown feather ) are both cryptozoologists and later found the animals belonging to the stories/skin and feather, the Okapi and the Congo peacock !
Without wading into the argument, I will say that this sounds dangerously close to a circular argument
to wit, something like the following:If someone looking for a cryptid successfully proves the species does exist, they are a real scientist and a legitimate zoologist, because they have successfully proved the species does exist and therefore cannot be a cryptozoologist because "cryptozoology is by definition a pseudoscience" and anyone looking for a cryptid who is unsuccessful in proving the species exists is, ipso facto, not a legitimate zoologist.
Or to put it another way, because you define cryptozoology as a pseudoscience, anyone who identifies themselves as a cryptozoologist and is successful in discovering a new taxon *must* be incorrect in their self-identification.
In my understanding:
The term cryptozoologist is derived from the prefix crypto-, meaning hidden, and the suffix -zoologist. It refers to a zoologist that searches for hidden species i.e. species that present evidence for their existence but have never been found or described (so remain 'hidden' from science). Technically Johnston and Chapin mentioned above were engaged in cryptozoological pursuits with the Okapi and Congo Peafowl, as was the scientists chasing the Saola when known only from skulls. The scientists looking for new species of lizards and insects in the canopy of rainforests are also engaged in cryptozoological activities.
However, these people are fulltime scientists and are normally engaged in other non-cryptozoological scientific studies.
The term today, unfortunately, is used in common parlance instead of the name 'monster-hunter' to refer to people who search for legendary creatures - sasquatch, yeti, yowie, Nessie, mkole mbembe, nittaewo, agogwe, orang pendek and - more recently in Australia - big cats. These people are, with some exceptions, not scientists and spend their time pursuing these creatures; when they're not on the hunt, they don't work as scientists.
Hix
The term cryptozoologist is derived from the prefix crypto-, meaning hidden, and the suffix -zoologist. It refers to a zoologist that searches for hidden species i.e. species that present evidence for their existence but have never been found or described (so remain 'hidden' from science). Technically Johnston and Chapin mentioned above were engaged in cryptozoological pursuits with the Okapi and Congo Peafowl, as was the scientists chasing the Saola when known only from skulls. The scientists looking for new species of lizards and insects in the canopy of rainforests are also engaged in cryptozoological activities.
However, these people are fulltime scientists and are normally engaged in other non-cryptozoological scientific studies.
The term today, unfortunately, is used in common parlance instead of the name 'monster-hunter' to refer to people who search for legendary creatures - sasquatch, yeti, yowie, Nessie, mkole mbembe, nittaewo, agogwe, orang pendek and - more recently in Australia - big cats. These people are, with some exceptions, not scientists and spend their time pursuing these creatures; when they're not on the hunt, they don't work as scientists.
Hix
jbnbsn99
Well-Known Member
In my understanding:
The term cryptozoologist is derived from the prefix crypto-, meaning hidden, and the suffix -zoologist. It refers to a zoologist that searches for hidden species i.e. species that present evidence for their existence but have never been found or described (so remain 'hidden' from science). Technically Johnston and Chapin mentioned above were engaged in cryptozoological pursuits with the Okapi and Congo Peafowl, as was the scientists chasing the Saola when known only from skulls. The scientists looking for new species of lizards and insects in the canopy of rainforests are also engaged in cryptozoological activities.
However, these people are fulltime scientists and are normally engaged in other non-cryptozoological scientific studies.
The term today, unfortunately, is used in common parlance instead of the name 'monster-hunter' to refer to people who search for legendary creatures - sasquatch, yeti, yowie, Nessie, mkole mbembe, nittaewo, agogwe, orang pendek and - more recently in Australia - big cats. These people are, with some exceptions, not scientists and spend their time pursuing these creatures; when they're not on the hunt, they don't work as scientists.
Hix
That's the general gist of it. Call a genuine scientist who is doing that work in the rainforest canopies would be highly offended if you called them a cryptozoologist.
I think that it depends on the individual whether he or she is "offened" by this term.
Hix is correct that cryptozoology is nowadays usually connected to self-proclaimed "monster hunters" of usually very dubious nature. You know, that kind of person...
http://www.meningorillasuits.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/becausealiens.jpg
However, early representatives of cryptozoology, like Bernard Heuvelmans, at least had a scientific education, and some modern scientists like Henry Gee or Darren Naish do appreciate, even though always with a grain of salt, some aspects of cryptozoology.
Personally, I do think cryptozoology, intended in Heuvelmans' original way and stirring away from "monster hunting", does have it its merits. For one, it helped to convey the message that natives and their expertise with the local wildlife should be taken into account when approaching the discovery of habitats. After substracting commonplace superstition and bragging, listening to them has often led to surprising results, thereby successfully challenging previous racist bias by early Western scientists.
Secondly, its attractiveness for young people can be used to introduce them to the more "boring" aspects of serious scientific research, and teach them rational scepticism while preserving their interest and curiosity in pursuing knowledge.
If I happen to run into a species discovered and scientifically described by a so-called cryptozoologist, I'll post it here.
SealPup
Well-Known Member
Looking for smoking guns is the problem. So is preconcieved ideas tbh. Think of their lack of enthusiasm about the yeti being a bear. To them it was a debunking but to others it could be proof the yeti was real after all. Incidentally Chinese texts regarded yetis as closer to bears than to men.
Does Homo floresiensis count as a cryptid discovery? Greg Forth predicted its existence based upon Floresian folklore, which at times remembers details like them walking with palms outwards.
His argument is this, that although flesh and blood critters like foxes or hares might have lots of supernatural sttributes in folklore, it would still be possible to distinguish them from spirits in the folklore corpus, if we didnt know they existed.
So the Flores tales had a different quality from Bigfoot and Yowie stories, or the Woodwose of medieval bestiaries. Interestingly Forth predicts the kaptars/almases to be real, based upon the nature of the oral lore suggestive of a familiar animal.
Does Homo floresiensis count as a cryptid discovery? Greg Forth predicted its existence based upon Floresian folklore, which at times remembers details like them walking with palms outwards.
His argument is this, that although flesh and blood critters like foxes or hares might have lots of supernatural sttributes in folklore, it would still be possible to distinguish them from spirits in the folklore corpus, if we didnt know they existed.
So the Flores tales had a different quality from Bigfoot and Yowie stories, or the Woodwose of medieval bestiaries. Interestingly Forth predicts the kaptars/almases to be real, based upon the nature of the oral lore suggestive of a familiar animal.
I thought that cryptids are animals that are believed to exist today, not extinct species.
FunkyGibbon
Well-Known Member
A
Although there's no real reason to think the Leang Bua finds are a good reference point for when Homo floresiensis became extinct.
Although there's no real reason to think the Leang Bua finds are a good reference point for when Homo floresiensis became extinct.