Oof. I went through a phase where I wanted to be one of these in middle school. I cringe every time I hear the word now.
this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
38 points (97.5% liked)
Wikipedia
1590 readers
235 users here now
A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.
Rules:
- Only links to Wikipedia permitted
- Please stick to the format "Article Title (other descriptive text/editorialization)"
- Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails
Recommended:
- If possible, when submitting please delete the "m." from "en.m.wikipedia.org". This will ensure people clicking from desktop will get the full Wikipedia website.
- Interested users can find add-ons and scripts which do this automatically.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I never considered cryptozoology to be a pseudoscience, since so many animals thought to be not real were then discovered to be real.
I guess after they found proof of all the big ones that used to be legends, they circled back around to "definitely not".
which is where people were before they found Komodo dragons and giant squids and gorillas.
okapis.
okapis and platypi can be forgiven, they don't even look real when you're staring at them.
but those are all subjects of cryptozoology that evidence found to be real.
All the animals you've mentioned here were well known for decades (even centuries) before the (pseudo)science of Cryptozoology was established in the 1950s.
It is absolutely pseudoscience. The only subjects of study are creatures that have no concrete evidence of existence. In the 75 years since the establishment of the 'discipline', no new species have been documented by cryptozoologists. Meanwhile, actual biologists discover (and more importantly document) hundreds of new animal species every year.
Even if some famous cryptid were to be proven to exist, it would immediately be no longer a cryptid. They're just animals, and would be studied by zoologists just like Komodo dragons are.
Cryptozoology is the study of unknown/legendary creatures that may be real.
following research and investigation, sometimes those creatures turn out to be real.
calling cryptozoology a pseudoscience is like calling chemistry a pseudoscience because you haven't figured out every chemical reaction yet.
Feel free to point to a single species discovered by a cryptozoologist.
Zoologists discover and document unknown animals every day. That's the real science involved in known or unknown creatures. That's the equivalent to chemistry in your atrocious analogy.
Cryptozoology is more akin to Alchemy. It's people who fundamentally disagree with basic scientific principles, starting from a conclusion and trying to force whatever paltry evidence they can find into a preexisting mold while ignoring all evidence contrary to their beliefs. There's a reason Cryptozoology is tied so closely to young earth creationism.
posted this after the weekly challenge on [email protected] ☞ covert cryptids
wanted to read a little about cryptids before starting to work on an image
"Feel free to point to a single species discovered by a cryptozoologist."
according to your take, literally every animal ever discovered was discovered by a cryptozoologist, because something is impossible until it is already known.
"It's people who fundamentally disagree with basic scientific principles."
except the ones who investigated and discovered legendary animals that turned out to be real by gathering information, theorizing the existence of an animal, figuring out where the information pointed them, doing field research, and finding those animals.
"starting from a conclusion and trying to force whatever paltry evidence they can find into a preexisting mold while ignoring all evidence contrary to their beliefs."
like the conclusion most people had that there are no way gorillas can be real because there was no evidence for them until a guy went to the jungle, found a skull, and suddenly gorillas were "real".
The scientific process works in cryptozoology, resulting in objective successes and plenty of failures, like other sciences.
You are failing the very basics of reading comprehension here.
"according to your take, literally every animal ever discovered was discovered by a cryptozoologist, because something is impossible until it is already known."
This is so much nonsense I can't even figure out what the hell you're talking about. Are you just a word salad AI bot? As I've said repeatedly, real zoologists discover and document new species every day. Nowhere have I suggested anything is impossible.
"except the ones who investigated and discovered legendary animals that turned out to be real by gathering information, theorizing the existence of an animal, figuring out where the information pointed them, doing field research, and finding those animals."
Again, every single one of those discoved by not a cryptozoologist because the concept wasn't invented until 1950. You're completely dismissing the work of naturalists, biologists, and the occasional trophy hunter, and instead crediting a concept that wouldn't exist for half a century.
"like the conclusion most people had that there are no way gorillas can be real because there was no evidence for them until a guy went to the jungle, found a skull, and suddenly gorillas were "real"."
Again, that's the work of a naturalist.
I'm not gonna keep banging my head against this wall. I assumed you were misguided but interested in the subject, but now it's clear you have some emotional attachment to the 'romantic' idea of cryptozoology and you aren't interested in reality. If you do decide to actually learn something, I suggest you start with the Wikipedia article that started this conversation.
"You are failing the very basics of reading comprehension here."
this doesn't make any sense with respect to my comments. what do you mean?
oh, here's why:
"I can't even figure out what the hell you're talking about."
yeah, you being confused doesn't mean other people are confused.
You are confused
"As I've said repeatedly, real zoologists discover and document new species."
oh, like cryptozoologists have.
got it.
Now you're taking up the mantle of my argument.
"You're completely dismissing the work of naturalists, biologists, and the occasional trophy hunter, and instead crediting a concept that wouldn't exist for half a century. "
by agreeing with your point that zoologists and cryptozoologists discover animals?
The development of a concise term for someone studying mythical animals doesn't mean nobody studied and discovered mythical animals before then because they found evidence of their existence.
lasers were invented the '60s, they didn't get named lasers until the '70s.
didn't mean lasers weren't real until they came up with a good name.
at best, you're arguing that all cryptozoologists are legitimate zoologists since they discover new animals.
"I'm not gonna keep banging my head against this wall."
If that's what you've been doing, your goofy mental gymnastics so far make much more sense in context.
Perhaps pseudoscience is too strong a word. It only becomes pseudoscience for me when it involves deception (such as portraying nonscientific narrative approaches as being motivated by the scientific method), but people have different bars for it
yea, that makes more sense.
I feel like "esoteric" field of science or the like makes a lot more sense.
While it's a small field that few serious scientists are devoted to, they used and use scientific methods to find a lot of animals previously thought to be myths.
Maybe it doesn't involve fabricating evidence but at least it is very much based on trusting sources that are obviously nonsense. There are mythical phenomena that have a real explanation but those have been investigated because they are described in many independent documents.
Yes, one shouldn't trust many of the sources, but it is still very interesting to think of how various cryptids relate back to the cultures they arose from, and what they signify about the relationship of that culture to their local environment. Darren Naish has written a lot of good stuff about this