Should Cryptozoology Throw Out “Hangers-Ons”?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on October 15th, 2007
Sometimes challenges need to be confronted head-on. I want to address a call from a blogger who says that cryptozoology is a credible discipline needing to “rid itself of the hangers-on” especially visible at other rival cryptozoology sites.
A woman on top of her own self-named “Llewtrah’s Soapbox”, in a blog entitled “Fox With Mange,” has this to say about our favorite subject (cryptozoology, please note, not mange) today, Monday, October 15:
Cryptozoology is the study of “hidden” or “unproven” animals - ones not yet scientifically recognised. The plus side is that new species being discovered, or rather animals long known to native peoples as “good to eat” get classified by sceptical scientists. Unfortunately, too many self-styled cryptozoologists lack the scientific training and the scepticism required for real scientific study. It’s these people who prevent cryptozoology from being taken seriously by the scientific community and being dismissed as yeti-hunting. The problem is, with no need for formal qualifications, anyone unable to identify a creature seems to call him/herself a cryptozoologist.
One of the more laughable forums on the web is at Cryptozoology.Com which appears to be inhabited by kiddies who regard every mange-ridden fox as an out-of-place hyena or a mutant long-tailed bobcat or hitherto unknown species of cat. The contributors confidently identify silhouettes as black pumas (the fact that pumas have never exhibited melanism goes whoosh! over their collective heads) and half-seen large animals as lion-jaguar or puma-leopard hybrids even though they’ve never seen either big cat outside of an I-Spy book. Scientific rigour and scepticism is in short supply on those forums. These identifications are posted by eejits wouldn’t be able to identify a hyena if they fell over one.
In conclusion, after saying a few negative things about British big cat people, she writes:
In the last several years, cryptozoology has gone from being a fringe pseudo-science on a par with paranormal investigators to a respectable discipline of following up reports of animals that have defied identification. Unfortunately, there are too many gullible, self-delusional unscientists bringing the whole study of new species into disrepute. If cryptozoology is be a credible discipline it needs to rid itself of the hangers-on who wouldn’t be able to identify a “panther” (that’s either a puma, leopard or jaguar, depending on which country you live in) if it ambled out of a hedge and they tripped over it.“Llewtrah’s Soapbox”
First of all, at least, Ms. Llewtrah was intelligent enough to not mention Cryptomundo by name, as we make it obvious that open discussions of canids with mange should be straight-forwardly identified as such or mentioned for comedic relief. But we do not put people down for their opinions in this regard. Everyone starts their education somewhere.
I think such broad strokes as are painted here by Ms. Llewtrah about cryptozoology being a credible discipline needing to “rid itself of the hangers-on” misses a big insight into what is taking place within the field today.
Allow me to support the overt manifestations of the developmental stages that occur when a new science is being pushed into popular culture, as is taking place in the 21st century with cryptozoology.
Considering cryptozoology is a relatively new science, having only concretely been formalized with its naming in the 1940s-1950s, not appearing as a word in a book until 1961, why would anyone be surprised that this youthful adventure appears as it does to the world today?
Cryptomundo.com is the most visited and the leading cryptozoology site on the net, and yet there is a purpose and reason for all of the other sites, which I will defend to the death. People do not become cryptozoologists overnight. From my experience, some folks play with the topic, get bored, and move on.
I’ve known several young Bigfooters to be passionate for a few years, until they geographically move, got a job, married, and/or had kids. Is it not better for there to be playgrounds and launching pads for these people on the net, than for them to attempt to do it all in academia. Or even to have several learning outlets?
The highly motivated few, whether they stop by one cryptozoology site or YouTube or here, may some day disappear into their own journey, their individual pursuit of cryptozoology and hominology, via books, schooling, and/or field studies. On the other side, they could reemerge as a fieldworker, scientist, author, or filmmaker who might make far-reaching contributions to cryptozoology, zoology, and natural history studies. Aren’t the critics like Ms. Llewtrah missing this entire process by jumping on one group of individuals, in a certain part of these cryptozoologists-in-training’s development and public revelations?
Yes, we all get tired of realizing that every-Chupacabras-is-really-a-dog end story, or the ultimate fake YouTube video verdict, but those critics who are missing the learning curve here are missing the point.
I would rather have some websites messing around with every-domestic-cat-is-a-puma discussions than to have silent out there. Cryptozoologists-in-training evolve in many forms, and to think that an elitist attitude is the right approach is as wrong-headed as the black and white concepts we are hearing from Ms. Llewtrah.
As opposed to thinking that “too many gullible, self-delusional unscientists [are] bringing the whole study of new species into disrepute,” I tend to experience what is occurring as merely a learning and evolutionary process observable in the broad daylight of the internet. The history of science has not benefited from a sense that one faction should exclude the young Turks, innocent fools, or different opinions, ever.
So while I might empathize with Ms. Llewtrah’s feelings, and perhaps mildly agree with a few of her personal frustrations oozing through her statements, I must disagree with the broader implications of her critique.
Allow cryptozoology to have its growing pains and it will emerge on the other side even stronger than before. Get into elitism, and trouble will be afoot. The big tent works the best in cryptozoology.
- Similar Phenomena:
As one who has “evolved” and continues to evolve in my knowledge of cryptids, I totally support what you say, Loren. My interest in cryptozoology started many years ago with the rare show on television. Then, my interest spread to books. With the advent of the internet, I was able to find others who shared my interests and my knowledge has grown over time. I started out at Cryptozoology.com (as a lurker) then discovered this site. Now I visit daily and I have learned so much. I still cannot list every zoological creature (cryptid or otherwise) by its Latin name, but I am learning. I would never call myself a “cryptozoologist” but I am definitely a fan and supportive of those who pursue the discipline. Sites like these also help to dispel ignorance and legend. I think the major players at these sites are always quick to impart to the “newbies” that scientific study and reasoning must be used when dealing with the unknown.
I also think of this time as Cryptozoology’s infancy. People will look back 50 years from now and be amazed at how a few people (like Loren Coleman) blazed the trail in this field. While I believe that everyone is entitled to his/her opinion (especially on their own blog), I think Ms. Llewtrah is missing the boat by not being willing to accept newcomers and not trying to impart her wisdom to them in an effort to educate them. I am so glad, Loren (and Craig and everyone else), that you are not elitists.
I too am one who has “evolved” over the past 3 or so years. Prior to finding this site I didn’t even know that one of my passionate interests is called cryptozoology. I thought I was just one of a few who “believed” in these creatures. I have learned so much from you and craig and everyone else who posts news and info here. Besides, how many of those “hanger ons” have actually commented back with the answer you were looking for? I do believe I remember that happening at least once or twice. Without the “hanger ons” cryptozoology might as well “get into bed” with the conventional scientists who deny everything. Hanger ons are basically the “natives” of the American society. No, most of us don’t have degrees in the sciences like Loren, but some of us live in areas where we know certain species because they are here or there, but we have seen them. That is what cryptozoology is about–seriously talking with the people with the claims and stories and not dismissing them just because the story doesn’t fit any mold. Besides, Loren, do you have all the answers? I know from reading some of his books and seeing clips where he was brought in to look at footage or something, he is able to look anyone in the eye and say, “No, I don’t know everything.” Everyone brings new insight. Degrees or not, we have lived our lives and some of us have been outside our hometown and seen new things. If having a degree with a technical name that would satisfy this person is so important to her, then I propose that I go sign up for the classes and she can pay my school bill. I’ll be fair. I’ll start at the junior college.
Well put, I am a “newbie”, there is no question. Having discovered this site a little over a year ago, I have learned a substantial amount from this site. My comments do get responses, but they are always considered, even if shown a better scenario. I couldn’t identify or tell the difference between any big cats. But that is why I always read everyone’s comments, and learn from others. I do not have the time or the $ to broaden my formal cryptozoology knowledge (although I would like to), so should I be banned from asking questions and making comments. The knowledge one has should always be passed on, or eventually it will be lost. Right now I consider this a hobby, would I eventually like to dive deeper into the subject….absolutely, but until then I will learn from all of you. This is much like an online classroom to me, and I log on each and every day. So thank you to everyone involved with this site. I will talk to you soon : )
Amen Loren, Amen!
I think what Ms. Llewtrah’s needs to understand, is that by applying that principle to Cryptozoology, she in effect is taking the approach of many “mainstream” scientist who so casually shoot down cryptozoology.
I believe what you posted here Loren, hits the nail on the proverbial head.
Ms. Llewtrah’s article vents some of the things that bug serious cryptozoologists. But I believe she may have missed a more important point. Although it is true that there are some kiddies on some sites talking about every mange ridden dog as a goat sucker, therein lies the beauty. The liability is also the asset.
For you see, we have young people interested in the field of crytozoology. And their enthusiasm is prevalent. I find this extremely encouraging. It all depends on your perspective or frame of reference.
From where Ms. Llewtrah sits, it bugs her. She feels this denigrates cryptozoology as a whole. But in reality, what I see from where I sit, is a new generation of enthusiastic cryptozoologists talking about their interests and being “open minded” to possibilities. Sure, their imaginations may run wild but they are children. And that my friends is the beauty of it. They have open minds. Why stifle that? Shouldn’t we be encouraging that kind of thought process? If not, we might as well discourage it and come up with a whole new generation of skeptics. Isn’t that the opposite of open mindedness? Isn’t that what skepticism is all about. We should be applauding these kids. And they have the internet conquered at an early age to spread the word. This is how the science of crytozoology will grow.
Instead of chastising these bright eyed children, we should be supportive of their enthusiasm. Afterall, aren’t these kids similar to the kids of 40 years ago who have now discovered new species? What if we shut them down or made them skeptics when they were young? They would not have discovered the new species.
I do understand Ms. Llewtrah frustration. But instead of chastising, maybe as the adults we should lend a helping hand. Perhaps we need to step up and “educate” these young minds that might have a few things wrong from lack of knowledge or overenthusiasm. We should be supportive. Instead of criticizing and discouraging them to not be part of the community as Ms. Llewtrah suggests, we should embrace and educate. That means posting at those sites and “educating” our new comrades with facts. We should help them grow, not stifle them!
So what I am going to do is start practicing what I preach. Instead of just posting at sites with more “expert” posts, we should be posting also at sites with future experts that need a bit of help. Aren’t their posts proof of their interest. Aren’t their posts with mixed up facts actually asking for someone to correct and educate them?
So maybe as “adults”, we need to take the lead as leaders and step up to the plate. I am guilty of not having the time to post even here that often. But think about it. We set by example. So that is what we should be doing. This is the “ought” and “is” of philosophy. We ought to be supporting these young impressionable minds. The reality is that because the kiddies got the facts wrong and we deem it as an unscientific post or site, we just move on without posting.
So who is the wrong then? Who really diminishes the science of cryptozoology if we do not help those begging for help or clarification with facts? Well, I know what I have to do in the future and sometimes, someone has to set the example and confront the facts at hand. I just laid out the facts. Now it is time for me to set the example. I suggest we all do the likewise.
So embrace these young minds. Nurture them with facts. And help bring in a new multitude of crypto-loving kids. If not, what we will have in the future is a new generation of skeptics.
That’s my two cents. But actions speak louder than words. So I have to go visit a few sites now!
Ha ha I agree with Loren for once. When this woman produces her “Cryptozoology Diploma” then she can start putting down the “unlicensed” cryptozoologists, haha.
I can only speak of my own experiences at that other site. I asked a simple question about a suspect Bigfoot photo that appeared in Fortean Times. My responses had nothing to do with my question. But I did get called stupid and gay a great deal.
Well said, Loren, well said. Cryptozoology today is in a rather unique position. We can observe simultaneously the growth and generation of myth, as well as the application of reason and science to the same occurrences. Just as an example, I will cite the Chupacabras. One one had we have the birth of the legend and myth, while we also have people working to try and determine what is actually going on. Compare this with the ‘discovery’ of the Gorilla. Europeans initially dismissed the local’s tales of them. These tales and legends were full of lurid details of how fearsome and dangerous gorillas were. It wasn’t until a good bit later that science got to be applied to the situation to determine the actual nature of the great primate.
I’m a hanger-on. I guess I should go kill myself.
Great thread, Loren! I agree that cryptozoology should be open to everyone, but I also wish more people would use the classical foundations of scientific inquiry when approaching the subject.
As a newcomer to this field (a few years), I consider myself a cautious outsider (hence, the moniker “Showme”). I’ll admit, some of the videos and sightings get me excited, but I always come back to the basics of the traditional scientific method:
1. Observation
2. Hypothesis
3. Prediction
4. Experimentation
From my point of view, I feel that many cryptozoologists use an abundance of the first three steps of the scientific method, but fall far short of the last one, experimentation. Countless people observe something, they hypothesize that it is a new type of creature, and predict that there must be more of them. The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are incompatible with tests. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of an observation without performing experiments.
How does one test out the theory that an unknown animal exists? That’s the million dollar question, but unfortunately, I think it’s what separates cryptozoology from conventional science. I believe follow-up investigations need to be done on the more solid sightings, such as the Chinese lake monsters. More motion cameras should be set in the woods, more expeditions (that include scientists) should be done, and humane traps should be set.
All of that said, I hope my critical eye hasn’t offended anyone on this blog. I enjoy reading every post.
How do you decide who hangers-on are, and how do you ban them from websites? There are not two neatly defined groups (called, say, “scientific” and “fringe”) of people involved - there’s a range or continuum and I don’t know how you can draw the line.
Like everyone else, I know people I think of as scientific, whose posts I always read, and people who I think of as overly credulous. But that’s a personal opinion distinction, and the only way to make it is to have everyone’s posts available.
I have just posted on her blog pointing out how often the arrogant line taken by scientific experts has been turned on its by the effort of seasoned and passionate amatuers. Foolish girl.
The author is 100% correct that ” too many self-styled cryptozoologists lack the scientific training and the scepticism required for real scientific study. It’s these people who prevent cryptozoology from being taken seriously by the scientific community and being dismissed as yeti-hunting.”
I’ve been saying that for years, and may be one of the reasons why cryptozoology has failed so spectacularly in its effort to prove these animals exist.
“It’s these people who prevent cryptozoology from being taken seriously by the scientific community and being dismissed as yeti-hunting.”
It’s also people like me, who are interested in the paranormal phenomena attached to so many crypto cases. Maybe I’m reading too much into what Ms Soapbox wrote, but when someone is worried about “being taken seriously by the scientific community” they generally start “damning” aspects of cases they don’t like.
Just because someone doesn’t have a degree in a particular field, doesn’t mean that they can’t be very knowledgeable from “independent” research. I’ve been interested in cryptozoology since I was around 5 yrs. old, and have studied it since I was about 12. (I’m 38 yrs. young, now;). I would like to think that I have acquired a decent repertoire of knowledge on the subject over the years, and I’m fairly secure in this notion. I also acknowledge that I still have much to learn.
I was fortunate enough to have gone with my parents on several cross-country trips all over the U.S. and Canada in my formative early teen years. (I live in SW Virginia, as I did then). My dad was and still is an avid nature (mainly botany) photographer. I was fortunate enough to see many different types of wildlife (which is what I was always more interested in). Bighorn sheep, mountain goats, American Bison, and many others. I had read whatever I could about Bigfoot, Sasquatch etc. before these trips ever took place. I was fortunate enough to acquire many book(let)s on the same subject while we were in Northern California, Oregon, and especially Washington State. It seemed like literature on Bigfoot was in every little store and National Park visitor center. I was quite pleased and somewhat surprised with this, and spent my modest monetary allowance for the trip on as many of these publications as I could find. I remember in particular one publication written by none other than John Green. I found it very insightful. It included pics (although b&w) and first-hand accounts from eyewitnesses that Mr. Green had interviewed. I remember camping at the foot of Mt. Shasta, wondering what was lurking outside (what a thrill!). I also remember seeing first-hand, the devastation of the Mt. St. Helens eruption. While in Oregon (I think it was, anyways) I had what you might call an epiphany. I was standing on a high mountain ridge overlooking a vast (and I mean vast) expanse of coniferous forest, and thought to myself, “Yeah, if the big guy wanted to stay hidden in there, I could definitely see how it is possible”.
Anyway, sorry to ramble on so, but my point is that although an “unscientist”, or “hanger-on”, I have learned much about cryptozoology through my own independent study. So, I would disagree with someone like Ms. Llewtrah who feels that anyone with self-acquired knowledge, to whatever degree it may be, does not have anything worthwhile to contribute. The “elitist” attitude, to me, has no place in cryptozoology. Those of us who are interested in it, are obviously not going to be in the same stage of acquired knowledge as others at any given time. At least there are people out there that ARE interested. Give them time to learn…
How would one go about excluding others from a science that, thus far, remains unaccredited? There’s no hiearchy of scholars, no “schools” of cryptozoology, no departments or programs for it any accredited, legit universities that I know of… so the idea of “throwing out the hangers-on” is off-kilter to say the least. In a sense, everyone’s a “hanger-on.”
I suppose what she’s really getting at (clumsily) is not so much the need for throwing out “hangers-on” but for tightening up the poor critical-thinking skills that so many exhibit these days. People rush to buy into anything—the latest wild theory, the latest sham sighthing, the latest bit of unsupportable evidence… and there’s the danger that it does harm to science, this flattening out of our ability to critically examine evidence. I don’t speak merely of cryptozoology; if anything it’s the least and smallest offender in this respect. The worst offense cryptozoologists have been guilty of, as far as I’ve ever seen, is too much enthusiasm—hardly a terrible crime.
What we need to guard against, really, are those who ignore science, or use a little knowledge of it to spread their own ignorance. Conspiracy theorists are a case in point. Creationists are another. I’m not concerned about a lot of amateur cryptozoologists running around the field trying to find evidence of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster… god bless ‘em. Just, when you find evidence, be scientific about it, not dogmatic. Keep to the genuine, not the supposed and the theorized. Keep a clear head. Don’t have an agenda. That’s all we can hope for.
This feels to me like yet another case of a (probably) well-meaning person getting caught up in the evangelical fervor of contemporary debunkers, who generally identify themselves as “sceptics.” This lady is not herself a scientist - at least her blog profile shows no indication that she is a scientist - yet she evidently feels confident in personally deciding who and what is scientific or “unscientific” in the world of Cryptozoology. I just don’t get how it is that non-scientists feel so supremely qualified to decide what is and is not science. Canadian Illusionist Randall Zwinge, A.K.A. James Randi or The Amazing Randi, is sort of the granddaddy of this trend. The man is a talented illusionist, and I give him credit for identifying clever misdirection and trickery employed by some charlatan faith healers and psychics. However, when he expands his “scepticism” into scientific circles, and derisively dismisses the work of legitimate scientists, often without really looking at the details of the work, he makes a huge error in judgment. Some legitimate scientists have been able to take the time to rebut Randi’s frequently erroneous and misrepresentative statements about their work. Unfortunately, many times these rebuttals or corrections are not seen by the same, wider audiences that are exposed to Mr. Zwinge’s often scathing attacks on legitimate research, which generally get lots of press and airtime - just as do those of Michael Schermer and Joe Nickell, two other non-scientists who feel comfortable publicly attacking the work of real scientists in a fashion that often borders on contempt. Unfortunately, this negative aspect of “scepticism” has become so popular that imitators are springing up everywhere. I believe this may be why, in this case also, a non-scientist blogger feels so confident in making sweeping pronouncements about what should and should not be considered scientific. She may have a legitimate point or two to make, but I believe the reason that she, along with many other “sceptics,” frames her statements in such denigrating and dismissive terms, is because of the relentless rewarding (in the form of attention) of such behavior by the media. I’ll be pleased when, as it must do eventually, the popularity of this kind of behavior dies down.
Of course I have an altogether friendlier view of James Randi and other skeptical leaders than does Munnin, but I’ll just add a couple small biographical points:
Randi is certainly an elder statesman of skepticism, but it happens that his name is actually “James Randi”: it was legally changed. Likewise, although I’m pleased as a Canadian to say he is Canadian-born, Randi is a naturalized US citizen.
Neither Dr. Nickell nor Dr. Shermer are working scientists, but neither are they without relevant credentials. Michael Shermer, for example, holds an MA in Experimental Psychology and a Ph.D. in the History of Science. (He is a well-known biographer of Alfred Russel Wallace, among other things.)
It’s actually pretty surprising to see Nickell and Shermer singled out. They’re both rather mild voices in skepticism.
Good posts. I don’t see anything “elitist” about asking for good science, and bringing good science to bear on the topic.
I am not a scientist and have never claimed to be, but I have a far better understanding of scientific processes and methodologies than the average person.
This comes from editing a science magazine for ten years, but also being interested in skeptical inquiry, which is at its heart scientific inquiry. Furthermore, much of cryptozoological evidence comes down to eyewitness testimony.
That is an area in which I happen to be more qualified than just about anyone else working in the field. My background (and university degree) in psychology are very helpful in understanding the mental processes behind why and how people can both misperceive and misunderstand phenomena.
Very interesting comments. At least that’s the opinion of this hanger-on.
Funny word that one. I’m Mexican so I had never read it before. Just went to check it at webster.com
That’s me all right. I would never dare to call myself a cryptozoologist. I’m merely an enthusiast of the topic with a rather grave problem: an insatiable curiosity. So I’m just here to placate my cravings
I ask you this: what’s the end result of cryptozoology? Is it not that these beings who are not recognized by mainstream Academia be finally accepted into taxonomic classifications? In other words, that cryptozoology may one day lose its prefix and turns into plain zoology?
What’s so great about cryptozoology as a hobby is
A) that it sparks the imagination, and
B) it forces you to learn about a great deal of other things such as: zoology, geology, ecology, geography, biology, biochemistry, psychology, anthropogy, paleontology, mythology, and very large deal of etcetera.
What’s wrong with people interesting in all these things?
On one hand I hear scientists complaining that people are more interested in celebrity gossip than in their fields, but on the other hand they still have this sense of elitism that only they are qualified enough to impart decisions on what should be considered truth and what not.
Isn’t the whole purpose of education that all people get the chance to learn and discuss on things that was once known by a few privileged individuals in the past? Or am I missing something here?
Sure, there are a lot of hoaxes and wrong ideas out there. But that’s the part of the learning process, to discern what is valuable and what not. You begin in this field believing anything you see published because Hey! if it’s in a book, it must be the truth right? But with age comes maturity and with a healthy dose of skepticism you (ideally) learn to pick the wheat from the chaff.
Besides, it’s not like cryptozoologists are a direct threat to Western civilization or anything. I mean, it’s not like engineering, where a hobbyist would make a BIG and DANGEROUS mistake if he tried to build a bridge without a proper education! What’s wrong with a few enthusiasts going to the field in pursuit of Bigfoot or Nessie? Maybe some people share the fears of the late Carl Sagan that this is becoming a Demon-haunted world. But I see more danger in censoring new ideas than in letting them compete in the market of thoughts to see if they prevail or get discarded.
I’m just glad that I had the chance to come into this world in one of the most exciting times in history, thanks with the advent of probably one of the most important and life-changing inventions ever devised by man: The Internet. When I have the chance to share my thoughts and learn from people I may never have the opportunity to meet in person!
Well, that’s just my 2 cents on this.
There have been some excellent points made, and rbhess has summed it very nicely. However, with respect to some of the comments rbhess has made, I would like to diverge:
Let us not forget the basic principle that qualifications, and this is so very true with respect to the religion that science has become, are really only an indicator of hours and effort spent. They are not absolutely reliable indicators of depth of understanding, insight, open-mindedness, or of competence. When we consider some of the hack practitioners of science that are out there (and why does Philippe Rushton LEAP to mind on this point?), it becomes clear that the main criterion in assessing the quality of science is by its practice. This is irrespective of the qualifications of the practitioner — no small number of high priests of science are very unscientific in their application of scientific principle.
Let us also remember that skepticism and doubt, in their varying degrees, are as far removed from the scientific ideal of objectivity as belief and conviction, in their own, varying degrees, are. Mr. Radford in particular would do well to note this point before making the assertion that “skepticism” is a requisite for one who practises science. That may be true of his particular sect, but then sectarianism always ends up moving away from the core ideals of any religion.
A true, open mind will learn from any source — either directly or indirectly. On that basis, as someone else has suggested, the “hangers-on” to which Ms. Llewtrah refers are doing the discipline of cryptozoology a service, whether they know it or not.
Just my two cents.
Elsanto notes: >>Let us also remember that skepticism and doubt, in their varying degrees, are as far removed from the scientific ideal of objectivity as belief and conviction, in their own, varying degrees, are. Mr. Radford in particular would do well to note this point before making the assertion that “skepticism” is a requisite for one who practises science.”
If I’m able to parse the above comment, I agree that skepticism is not the same as the scientific ideal of objectivity. No one was talking about ideals of objectivity, but I see skepticism and science as closely related.
Elsanto apparently views science as a religion (!?), and skepticism as a sect for reasons that are unclear. Science is a method of inquiry, a procedure for establishing the truth value of claims. In this fundamental way, if no other, science and religion are very, very different.
I am a trained scientist, I have degrees in psychology, sociology and biology. I have been a cryptozoologist for over 30 years, but still consider myself an amateur!
I work at a university, I am an academic and train other people how to do research. I still don’t consider myself as an expert. I am also skeptical on many things such as UFOs, ghosts etc but my background makes me question what I see. I always look for an answer, and weigh up the evidence from both sides before thinking hmm, maybe there is something in this.
But it will be not be me that finds something tangible as evidence, it will be the enthusiastic untrained person, who just takes an interest. Or it will be the youngsters out for a laugh, thinking they may go monster hunting. Science is often stumbled upon: think of how penicillin was being discovered because someone didn’t wash their petrie dishes. Don’t knock anyone who takes an interest, from a skeptic’s point of view, or a believer. The more people looking for answers one way or another, the more that might be found.
I shall now go back to my corner and back to work. I really must stop looking on here when I am at work
elsanto:
Science is not a “religion.” It is, as B. Radford says, a method of inquiry; a method, that is, for examining the world, finding out how things work and why they are the way they are. I know that many commentators on culture and history have drawn the parallel between science and religion, in order to assert that science is our “new religion,” since Christianity in the West is, in a sense, dead. (It really isn’t, of course, but as a force in our history, politics and culture, it isn’t what it once was–even in today’s environment, with whacky right-wing Creationists and other Fundamentalists running around). I also realize that at times, science must seem as dogmatic to some as religion does, and to be fair, certain practioners do sometimes come off as rather dogmatic, like priests guarding holy writ; but in fact, overall, science is nothing like religion and never can be if it remains science. That even scientists are only human is a simple truth we need to recognize–so if at times we wonder about their motives, methods of practice, etc.–well, humans are flawed creatures who aren’t always on “their game,” but this is not something that should in any way discredit science itself. Science is not the people who practice it; science is science. It is a methodology, a system, an objective examination of evidence and testing of evidence which helps us to come to conclusions. It has no dogma and no holy writ and asks for nothing on faith (as religion does). It isn’t the enemy of religion, but neither is it friend or ally of religion and certainly is not the same thing as religion.
What commentators are referring to when they discuss “science as religion” is not so much what science itself is but rather how we view it; particularly the “we” who are not scientists. We have come to believe that science can provide all the answers, solve our problems, etc. That this–in a very loose sense–”replaces” our faith in religion is what people refer to when they call science our “religion.” But this is metaphoric only. No one believes we’re going to take to worshiping science as some kind of god, that we’re going to invent a “god of science” or turn science literally into some kind of dogma.
It sounds like you’re hammering at this point because you are frustrated with the “skeptics” who discourage your views; you mistake skepticism for a dogma, which it is not. I know it irks some who believe they have widely-open minds regarding certain phenomena (Bigfoot, etc.) to be scoffed at by skeptics—but it simply doesn’t work to try to turn the tables on the skeptic and call him “dogmatic.” It is, rather, dogmatic to claim that there is (currently) forceful, hard, irrefutable evidence for, say, Bigfoot. In fact there is as yet no great body of strong evidence that can not be questioned or dismissed, and what little “evidence” there is remains trivial in nature. This is not to say that the evidence can’t be found—and by all means, Cryptozoologists should go out and do their level best to find it. In the meantime, however, skeptics, yes, may scoff. Let them. Skepticism is a valuable quality in science and is far better than being gullible. Some people, surely, have hard heads and refuse to look up to see truth falling on them; oh well, such people always end up chucked aside by history, lost in the obscurity they deserve. A Schliemann comes along that they scoff at, and yet he holds the key to reality… and they are, in retrospect, lost, while he triumphs. But it’s far better to have the skeptic there questioning all that is found, than to have a plethora of unquestioned non-evidence which seems to form a picture which–in the end–proves to be false.
I like this line of elsanto’s: “[N]o small number of high priests of science are very unscientific in their application of scientific principle.”
I’ve noted this here more than once. I’ve never heard a scientist attempt a dismissal of, for example, the sasquatch, without offering in support “arguments” that I could dissect in seconds.
Just as cryptozoologists need to subject their evidence to the scientific light of day, scientists need to make sure that they’re applying science to their arguments. The true scientific response is never: “Maybe, but it’s unlikely.” It is: “Fine. Show me the evidence.” And once the evidence is shown, it must be refuted. The inability of scientists to do this is why we’re still talking about the sas.
The trouble is that anyone trying to set up a “learned cryptoological society” with criteria based on degrees, years in the field, publications, or the rationality of people’s views would spend so much time deciding and debating who belongs that the cryptozoology work would take second place.
I am not sure what Ms. Llewtrah has against this site. I myself do not see the problem with those who come here to learn new things and express their opinions on the matter. Most people here seem to be here out of a personal interest and to open their eyes to the subject rather than for the purposes of becoming “self styled cryptozoologists” or trying to put forth any of their own serious research into the matter. This is not a peer reviewed scientific journal, it is a site that is supposed to be open for everyone to enjoy the world of cryptozoology. Cryptomundo really to me is more of a forum for those to get together who share the same interests and I actually have not seen a whole lot of people who post here actually come out and proclaim they are a cryptozoologist.
I understand that Ms. Llewtrah is digging at what she perceives to be an underlying disregard for science that can be shown with cryptozoological field research and in this respect, I sadly have to agree. Potentially powerful evidence can be severely limited in value if it is analyzed, handled, or presented in the wrong way. Furthermore, the habit of jumping to conclusions, embracing unproven theories, or misrepresenting evidence certainly exists within this field and this does little to bolster serious credibility. When a strange smell outdoors or a curiously twisted branch is immediately assumed to be the doing of Bigfoot, there is an obvious problem with objectivity. This sort of subjective evidence just cannot by put forward for any sort of objective scientific peer review. Any evidence out there in the field needs to be looked at and treated as evidence is in any other scientific field and this is where cryptozoology may suffer for lack of scientific expertise at times. Then again, there are amateurs out there in a wide variety of scientific disciplines who are capable of doing good work and making solid contributions, so who knows? Although proper scientific protocols may not always be followed in this field, I wouldn’t thoroughly discount the potential effectiveness of amateurs just yet.
Cryptozoology can still go a long way, I think. Something that I think is important to remember is that most new animal discoveries are not made by cryptozoologists, per say. They are made by biologists, zoologists, etc, because these are the ones out there doing proper scientific field work and adequately documenting the species they have found, whether intentionally or by accident (as these things sometimes are). Maybe I am wrong, but I cannot recall a major discovery of megafauna made under the banner of cryptozoology, by someone proclaiming themselves to be a strict cryptozoologist. It would be nice to see standards of research in the field come along to the point that some day cryptozoology IS an accredited and seen universally as a legitimate science. When it gets to the point that major discoveries can proudly be pronounced as made by a cryptozoologist, we will know that the field has matured and come into its own. Like Loren said, I think there may be some growing pains to go through. Then again, all it takes is a sasquatch body found by the right hiker at the right time and there you go.
But getting rid of the “hanger ons” and criticizing this site? Like I said, there is a place for amateurs and enthusiasts in science. If people want to get together here and swap ideas or opinions, what’s wrong with that?
I have visited other Crypto-sites as well and every time, I read comments from people who obviously have knowledge of science, anatomy, biology, etc. Degrees or not, there are some very smart people visiting theses sites!
And what harm is really being done? If people don’t believe in these cryptids, they probably never will, so what difference does it make what the rest of us do? If these creatures do not exist, what do we need degrees in?
I’d say she’s right about Cryptozoology.com.
Sorry I can’t be as kind as some of the other posters here. Ms. Llewtrah is simply being an elitist. No, Ms. L, ’tis true; I have no science degrees. In fact have own two diplomas-High School and Truck Driving School. But I do have the following:
1) a love of the natural world, with a special fondness for its critters.
2) Reasonably good intelligence, and solid powers of observation.
3) A fascination with the idea that there could be unknown, or thought to be extinct creatures “out there” just waiting to be discovered-Sas, Sea-Serpents, Living Dinos, etc.
And maybe thats what a lot of us Cryptonaughts have-a certain child-like wonder that is open to such things, and which doesnt “mellow” with age. Not terribly credentialed or sophisticated of me, I know, but true nonetheless.
I’d actually say that the bigger problem is not hangers-on in crypto; it’s mainstream science not following up promising leads that led to crypto in the first place.
Scientists can tell me why they personally can’t be bothered with this right now. What science can’t tell me is that the evidence shows there is nothing to bother with. The evidence shows anything but. As this site proves, almost daily.
Allow me to clarify a few points. When I refer to science as a “religion” I’m not doing so in the contexts that rbhess has mentioned. I am not suggesting that science is the new Judeo-Christianity in the West, nor am I referring to how the masses view it. As Mr. Radford said, science is a procedure, a method of inquiry. There, I have no disagreement with him. If one reads my post carefully, it is the way in which that methodology is applied that brings science into the realm of religion. And, I must disagree, rbhess: science has become dogma time and again.
The scientific field of paleontolgy had definitely been dogmatised (and still is in some respects). 20 years ago, a man named Robert T. Bakker wrote a rather controversial book, appropriately named “The Dinosaur Heresies.” (I was a kid then, couldn’t wait to get my hands on the book, and re-read the thing several times.) In it, Bakker applied scientific principle to question what he referred to so aptly as “orthodoxy.” Bakker’s basic premise was “Why have we come to accept certain ways of thinking with respect to dinosaurs, and why have we done so on the basis of work done over the last century and some decades without having actually applied science and logic to what has been done?” I also remember the widespread criticism that Bakker received — though no one was able to adequately criticise the integrity of his work. Now, the majority of his ideas have been recognized as sound with one, glaring exception.
Science becomes dogma when it insists that certain medical conditions are “incurable”. I have seen, firsthand, several individuals cure themselves of such “incurable” diseases through certain practices. One of these, a close friend, has had it medically certified that she no longer has any sign or symptom of endometriosis — a condition which conventional medicine holds to be incurable except POSSIBLY by hysterectomy, hormone treatment that renders one practically male, or, on occasion, pregnancy. Said individual took none of these routes. I could go on, but this would be best discussed elswhere, preferably over some decent nihonshuu (aka sake, outside of Japan).
Anyway, my point again is that it is the practise and application of scientific priniciple, and the almost dogmatic adherence to certain ways of thinking that determine for this writer whether science is science or whether it has become a religion. Anyone who becomes upset or uncomfortable with this point might do well to review just how tightly they adhere to their views — have they lost their own objectivity?
I prefer the word “question” to “scepticism”; and it is a valuable tool. At their essence, the majority of systems of thought which have become religion do encourage and support this principle (it’s only Paul’s perversion and Martin Luther’s further perversion of the teachings of Jesus that made faith the big deal in Christian thought). My issue with Mr. Radford was his statement that “skepticism” be a “requirement” for the application of science. It is a tool, as I have said, but one should not approach any question with preconceptions. “Belief” and “scepticism” are preconceptions that are best left at the door.
I trust that my position is now clear but I do not hold to any preconception that it might be so.
A further two cents.
L
Show me a pool of cynics, and I’ll show you a sceptic-tank.
Unless Biologists/biologists are in the process of proving one of their hypotheses they have an innate fear of being wrong. This is undoubtedly one of the major reasons for the ‘Pros’ not being more involved in the field of Cryptozoology. This field deals largely in secondary physical evidence, such as photos, videos or film, footprint casts, sound recordings, etc. and to a lesser extent the primary physical evidence of hair, bones, teeth and very rare carcasses to determine authenticity of cryptids. Although today’s geneticists can boast of decoding the human genome, DNA evidence gathered, from hair samples from Sasquatch for example, is mysteriously not accepted by the ‘Biology Pros’ as proof of existence when unidentifiable compared to all other known animals. Thus the morbid demand by some for a carcass to dissect as the only acceptable proof.
The Cryptozoolgist, both professional and amateur, have taken it upon them to analyze, to the best of their ability, a majority of the secondary evidence available in the form of photos and video/film footage as an avenue for verifying existence of cryptids. With the advent of the Internet these analyses are now available to a wider range of people for review than ever before. Sadly the increase of technology has also increased the more dubious portion of society in the form hoaxers, both intentional and unintentional (i.e. blobsquatches. etc). This is not the fault of either the field of Cryptozoology or the Cryptozoolgists, professional and amateur. However it does make the field and the effort to determine authenticity of secondary physical evidence more challenging.
This being the case there is no reason to exclude those considered ‘hangers-on’ (and I am unclear on this apparent derogatory definition) in the field of Cryptozoology as a vast majority of all evidence provided to the field comes from ordinary people that happen to be at the right place at the right time to witness, record or otherwise collect evidence of these elusive creatures. Everyone young and old alike has the right to an opinion and to voice that opinion for right or wrong. Who knows from where a crucial observation may come from in determining authenticity of evidence presented on today’s crypto websites?
I am completely grateful to you Loren, Craig and others here at Cryptomundo for providing this fantastic forum for observations and comments. Unlike the ‘Professional Biologists’ afraid of going out on a limb to comment about photos of cryptids I have intentionally tried to look past comments immediately dismissing pics as fraud to look for possible subtle signs that may point otherwise. Any who have read my posts will know that I have not always been correct in my assessments however I feel there have been occasions I have found subtle aspects not so easily dismissible if at all. Is it not the field of science that has grown over time through the very process of trial and error?
Having a background in Zoology/Biology and investigating Sasquatch, Sea Serpents and other Cryptids since 1971 I do not plan to stop now even if I might be classified as a ‘hanger-on’. My intent in adding comments to some of the postings here is only in effort to add validity to the field of Cryptozoology and I cannot refrain from adding comments in the future on a chance I may be wrong or hoaxed by hi-tech illusionists or children in hairy costumes
If we are unable to laugh at ourselves at times then how can we truly enjoy this remarkably interesting field of Cryptozoology? Do we have the right to prevent participation of other interested people in case they may be wrong?
Peace
WOW! very good comments, all of you. I wish I could express myself as well as the rest of you do on here. I guess I would be considered a (HANGER ONER) Please don’t hold it against me because I don’t hold a PHD or MS degree or any degree for that matter. All I know is that this site has piqued my interest in things I’ve always wondered about. BigFoot, Nessie, Chup. etc. I have learned some interesting stuff on this site. I have found that there are more people with my same interest than I could of possibly imagined. To ridicule someone for not having scientific knowledge or being young is just plain dumb. Like someone said above, isn’t up to us older folks to teach those younger and us less knowledgeable. Or try to anyway. Give a hand instead of a bunch of BS about being too young or non scientific enough. Like I said, wish I could express myself like most of you. Anyway, good comments guys & gals I’m sure.
OH! and please don’t throw me out!
elsanto:
Some good points, come come now, skepticism is not a “dogma.” It’s a valuable tool in advancing science, and in any case I’d take a room full of hardened skeptics any day over a room full of gullible nincompoops.
Your point about Robert Bakker seems like a good one at first read, but in fact it’s logically flawed. The simple fact that Bakker’s book was published and that his views eventually became accepted proves that science is not anything like a religion and is certainly not beset with the kind of dogmatic rigidity we think of when we think of religion or, say, politics. In the space of his lifetime–and really in only a small portion of it–Bakker’s ideas went from those of a maverick to almost full acceptance. Hardly a good example of “dogma” in science.
The fact is that most scientists are well-meaning folks who honestly believe that an open-mind is one of the most valuable tools in their profession. What you mistake for “dogma” is simply this: evidence must reach a point in terms of quality and quantity where it commands respect and demands attention. Thus far we have not, by any stretch, reached that in terms of phenomenona like Bigfoot, etc. Rest assured, however, that when the evidence reaches that point, then science will notice, and the skepticism will begin to fade.
Skepticism isn’t a dogma; it’s a healthy restraint on the all-too-human tendencies that would violate the methodology that science must work under. You can’t become frustrated with skeptics who scoff at your findings, to the point of trying to paint them as dogmatic; rather, you must continue to collect evidence–better and better evidence–which eventually they will be unable to ignore.
This has worked every time there has been a controversy in science in which the “underdog” has been proven to be right, in the end. Science comes around and accepts the new paradigm.
rbhess,
You and I aren’t really in disagreement. I have said, as you have, that scepticism is a tool. Like any tool it can be used, set down, re-used, or overused. I apply scepticism not only here, but directly to various “odd” (for lack of a better word) phenomena that I encounter on a daily basis. Furthermore, my point about science becoming dogmatized did not lie in the point of the reaction to Bakker’s work; it lay, rather, in the prelude — that paleontolgy was dogmatized and that it took a Bakker to break it. More than a century of palenotological thought (not long, but paleontology is a young discipline, so this was the case for the vast majority of its history) was dogmatized — people simply accepted the work of their predecessors with little question. The initial reaction to Bakker illustrates that even into the 1980s and 1990s dogma still had its hold on the paleontological community. In the end, it was difficult to refute the majority of Bakker’s work, and dogma had to bow to it. Admirably, as you say, this was done in relatively little time — but again, how many decades B.B. (Before Bakker) was that way of thinking prevalent.
As for science coming around and accepting the new paradigm; I think you’ll find that most of the time, it does so only on its own terms and the term we have for such thinking is “sophistry.” There are scientists who acknowledge that there are phenomena that are beyond the tools that modern science has developed. There are others who cannot bring themselves to make this simple, objective admission. How different are they from the most zealous believers?
Ms. Llewtrah’s attitude borders on the kind of dogmatic sophistry to which I’ve been referring. I have no problem with the demand for solid evidence; I want it just as much as the next guy — which is why I remain quiet on so very many of the cryptids that appear here; I just feel there’s not enough evidence to compel my interest. Should someone produce decent evidence, I’m not going to be overly concerned with that individual’s qualifications. I may choose, however, to give one individual’s interpretation of the evidence more weight than another’s, but I’ll base that on what the invidual is saying, rather than on any letters he or she may add after his or her name, or on pieces of paper mounted on the wall in his or her office.
Up to sixpence now,
L.
I tend to think that Ms. Llewtrah is painting the cryptozoology community with perhaps too broad a brush. There are indeed many scientifically minded people who post here and those in the field who are active in actual research of cryptids, and many who are not are eager to learn. I do however have a few other thoughts on what things tend to frustrate me about some in the cryptozoology community at times and while I don’t believe we should jettison these types of people as “hangers on”, these are nevertheless things I find disappointing.
First off is the abject disdain some seem to show towards skeptics, when in fact skepticism is a perfectly healthy part of questioning the world and finding out how things actually work. Any extraordinary claim, and by that I mean a claim which challenges or flies in the face of what the known scientific model of the world is, is going to be met with skepticism. We simply cannot start accepting at face value theories based on the fact that they COULD be plausible, but rather we need to see how the new information adds up to what we already know about the world. And so I think it becomes important to question all angles of such an extraordinary claim, which of course means skeptical angles as well. Is that large shape really a Bigfoot? Couldn’t it be a bear? How about a person in a costume? These are questions that I think draw us closer to finding out what is really going on. In my opinion, it is more conducive to question and rule out more mundane explanations when weighing a phenomena such as Bigfoot for which there is not enough solid evidence to accept as fact. Skepticism is not even unique to cryptozoology. In any scientific field, an extraordinary claim is going to be met with skepticism and possibly even harsh criticism. History is rife with new discoveries that met such barriers at first, but when the evidence finally came forward, this resistance waned and the truth was revealed, becoming part of our greater knowledge of the universe. I don’t think skepticism is something to be afraid of or become defensive about. It is par for the course, and I might even go as far to say that it is a somewhat innate quality of science to question new ideas, to test them and see if they hold water. If Bigfoot really is out there, and people are pursuing it , then the evidence will come forward eventually, in which case we will be that much wiser about the world we live in. But it has to be done the right way. I don’t understand fully why so many cryptos feel threatened by skeptics. I happen to think that skepticism is key to the integrity of this field and invaluable to maintaining a scientific approach to these phenomena, which brings me to my next contention.
There seems to be at times a sort of negative attitude towards science. I agree completely with rbhess in that I feel most in the scientific community are honestly trying to apply an ideally objective method, science, to trying to unlock what makes the world around us tick. I view science as a tool, and of course tools are only as good as the people who use them. Absolutely there are scientists that can come across as dogmatic, but the method itself is sound, and I think that scientists in general are trying to utilize that method as effectively as possible, testing new hypotheses against what we already know. Why should this be any different for cryptozoology? Despite some seeming to think that science is this big, evil thing out to get cryptozoology, I still view the scientific method as the best way to learn about our world, and that includes cryptids. Sure there may be some that are close minded and resistant to some avenues of inquiry, and I find this to be frustrating. But generally I don’t think that scientists are expressly out to get Bigfoot, or have any particular secret agenda to try and actively discredit the existence of cryptids. They do not instinctively loathe the idea, but merely do not have the luxury of presenting scant evidence and accepting the existence of these unknown animals without solid data to back it up, nor can they expect any serious funding for further investigation based on what is available now. Competition is fierce for research money and with what we have to show at this point in the way of evidence, cryptozoology is generally not going to come across as a high priority. It may seem like a catch 22 to some, but unfortunately that is the way it often is. I’d certainly like to see more effort made to follow up on potentially compelling circumstantial evidence, but if cryptozoology is to become a legitimate and recognized science, it cannot hold science as some sort of enemy. Cryptozoology has to play by the rules of science and that requires that we irrefutably show, through verifiable evidence, that these creatures are there and have a place in the world as we know it. I think that most in the cryptozoology community realize this, yet I still hear those that rail against science at times. In my opinion, go ahead and criticize those that would disregard the very idea of cryptids, but don’t lament science itself.
All this talk of science leads me into my third concern about certain elements within cryptozoology and this is concerning the burden of proof. This topic has come up on a few occasions here recently and I think it deserves mention. There seems to be a prevailing idea with some that rather then prove that cryptids exist, it is up to skeptics to prove that they DON’T. This is essentially proving a negative and has no place in a field striving to be known as a respectable zoological science. In ANY scientific field, the one who proposes a hypothesis is responsible for providing the proof, not the other way around. This is such a cornerstone of the scientific method that I find myself disappointed when people suggest that the burden of proof lies with skeptics. By the way some here talk sometimes, they would have us believe that we are to accept any notion as fact until it is proven not to be. This is of course, for lack of a better word, absurd. Are we to also believe in ghosts and goblins until you prove to me that they DON’T exist? Thinking like this is inevitably going to detract from the credibility of cryptozoology and inspire those like Ms. Llewtrah to say some of the scathing things she did. I want this field to be better than that.
The way i see it, I don’t “believe” that Bigfoot is out there. I think that it likely could be, but to me this is different than “believing”. While I think that Bigfoot is possible, I really just want to find the truth, whatever that may be. And so I come to my final point of frustration and this is the tendency for some to wholeheartedly embrace bigfoot as an irrefutable fact, no matter what. This to me ends up taking cryptozoology into the realm of faith when I think it should be more firmly placed in that of science. We should investigate Bigfoot, come up with theories, and search for the evidence that is needed, but blind “believing” I feel presents a whole slew of problems, not the least of which is that it can color our perceptions of evidence. When one comes across a twisted branch and allows their belief to convince them that it MUST be the doing of Bigfoot without adequately weighing other options, you are bound to suffer a loss of credibility. Likewise when an obvious hoax video gets hailed as misunderstood “evidence”, and accepted as real even in absence of anything to conclusively show that it is an actual clip of a cryptid. While the enthusiasm is commendable, I feel a more level headed approach is needed, and this doesn’t happen with some staunch “true believers”. I get a suspicion they have an agenda to promote what they feel they already know, when what should be happening is an earnest search for the truth. Rabid true believers, who flame against any idea that contradicts their perceived FACT that Bigfoot exists, are something I think paints a bad image of cryptozoology as a scientific venture.
These are just a few of the things that I am sad to see in this field since I have high hopes for cryptozoology as a science. I do not see any need to eliminate “hangers on”, but I hope that some of these tendencies diminish in the future.
Errata:
“I’ve been saying that for years, and may be one of the reasons why cryptozoology has failed so spectacularly in its effort to prove these animals exist.”
a. I don’t think that Ben may be one of the reasons (although that’s how this scans grammatically). But the brand of ’skepticism’ I see in the mass media is most definitely one of the reasons. Potential public proponents of further scientific study of cryptids look at it and say: why would I want that ^!$%!!$# all over me?
b. Should the sasquatch, yeti or any other marquee cryptid be confirmed, it will be obvious who has failed spectacularly, and it won’t be crypto. The very existence of sites like this is evidence of crypto’s success at making this a more public topic than it’s ever been. As the skeptics have been agreeing with me all along: only science can confirm. That is NOT crypto’s job. Crypto can only present evidence, which it has succeeded, pretty spectacularly, in doing. What is spectacularly lacking is mainstream scientific followup.
c. Digs aren’t errors. But, why the dig?
mystery_man: I’ll try to be brief but thorough, as your posts deserve that.
I don’t think I’m seeing people here disdaining skepticism, just a particular mindset that calls itself that but doesn’t always show skepticism to things that deserve same. It’s interesting to me that many folks feel totally comfortable in saying that many, in fact most, sasquatch reports are simply people seeing things, when I just can’t see anyone flying off the handle and saying “I saw Bigfoot,” given how they know it will be treated, unless they’re pretty sure they did. Too many of the reports I read simply don’t read like they’re coming from loose cannons or dishonest people. Could they all be? It’s conceivable. But is it wise to put all one’s chips on that bet? I don’t think anyone with a passing acquaintance with the anecdotal evidence would.
I’d also level skepticism at the claim that anecdotal evidence is of no use. Our criminal justice system wouldn’t exist without it. Eyewitnesses don’t convict; but you need them to get the evidence that does. I have to look skeptically at anyone who thinks that sightings can simply be tossed. If the counter is, no, I’m not saying toss them, then what, specifically, is to be done with them?
Disdain for science only hurts crypto. I think that when you see it, it’s an emotional response leveled at scientists who are talking off the tops of their heads without anything to back them up. I’m skeptical of any scientist who says the sas’s existence is “unlikely.” When one says this, it must be backed up with a percentage probability sustained by supporting evidence, or it is no more than a gut feeling. Which is fine, if you admit that’s what it is.
True skepticism says this: there is a lot of evidence out there. If you dismiss it, you must show me why. If you accept it, you must show me why. And what you show me has to be sufficient to convince me.
Oh well, can’t stay, but I know you’ll get back to me on anything I missed.
DWA- I have agreed with you for some time on the point that in my opinion there are a lot of things such as compelling circumstantial evidence and sightings that I do not think can be so easily dismissed. As I said in my previous post, these are things I’d like to see more follow up done on. But the unfortunate fact still remains that in order for a scientist to get funding as well as the acceptance and consent of their peers, they are going to have to present a pretty strong case for it considering sasquatch is an animal that does not completely jive with what is known about the wildlife of North America. Let’s face it, sasquatch is something that would shake the foundations of zoology. There is absolutely going to be skepticism aimed at this hypothesis in absence of anything more concrete than what is available, no matter how much you or I might personally find sightings reports and such to be significant. This would be true in any mainstream field of science when dealing with such an apparently grand claim that challenges a lot of what we know. What I am saying is that this sort of skepticism is to be expected and it is nothing to be afraid of, since if the evidence is there to be found, it will set things right in the end. I think we are actually both talking about the same thing, which is “real” objective skepticism, those who are looking at all angles, as opposed to those who have taken a personal stance that Bigfoot cannot exist. The sort of skeptics I am talking about DO give good reasons why a particular cryptid might not exist but in the end it is the evidence that must decide and the ones who put forth the theory have to provide it. Maybe I am over reacting, but I do tend to see a lot of people who in my mind see skepticism as some sort of attack on their belief system and don’t seem to realize that it is actually quite a normal thing to encounter even in mainstream science. I think this field could use a little more healthy skepticism to be honest.
As far as science in general goes, as you know I work in a scientific field, (mostly teaching, but occasional involvement in research) and I suppose I might be chuckled at by colleagues if I expressed my interest in cryptids. This is frustrating to be sure, but is it really their fault? There is nothing that has really been offered that can scientifically be taken as truly unquestionable about most cryptids. The scientific paradigm is working just fine for them and nothing has been brought to bear that seriously says it should be changed. Also keep in mind they have other things on their plate, things that they get funding for, and cannot afford to really delve into it. Despite all of this, I think most scientists would not expressly say cryptids are impossible, but instead take a stance similar to me when being shown what evidence we have and that is “I don’t know”. As for the ones that would dismiss even the possibility of cryptids out of hand, well, history has been full of them as well and they have often walked away from the debate with a foot in their mouth.
Science is not the enemy. It is a tool that cryptozoology needs and disdain for it only hurts crypto, like you said. I am sure that if someone can dig up the evidence that science requires (and I’m afraid at this point, the research will most likely be out of their own pocket), you will see those who would close down certain avenues of research will suddenly be a little more quite in their criticism. I totally agree with you that pat dismissal isn’t going to further the search for the truth. I share people’s frustration with certain scientists that perhaps unreasonably deny the possibility of cryptids or refuse to even look at any evidence that is there. But I have been seeing a tendency for some to let those few individuals make them take aim at all of mainstream science in general and I think this is a mistake.
m_m: as usual, we’re pretty much in agreement. (Boy, I’m glad we disagree occasionally. Folks might wonder.)
The only problem I have is when a scientist goes off half-cocked on this question. I guess that ingrained societal attitudes - you’re not supposed to believe in ghosts, UFOs, reincarnation or Bigfoot, that sort of thing - are more to blame than the individual scientist. But I think that mainstream science will have made a mighty leap forward when you no longer hear scientists - in totally unrelated fields, no less! - come straight out with “that is hooey, and Meldrum’s tenure should be yanked.”
The proper scientific response is: I’m open to proof. I just haven’t seen it yet.
If one’s belief is that the sas doesn’t exist, it is just that, a belief. It has nothing backing it up. If one will just admit that, and say that one just can’t see something like this going this long unconfirmed, just can’t get his/her arms around that, now we’re fine. But I don’t like seeing people cover up their ignorance by pulling rank on people who know more than they do.
DWA- Yeah, the whole Meldrum fiasco went a little too far and that was unfortunate. I also agree that there should be a willingness to consider all evidence, whether it is viable or not, but we are only human in the end. I tend to think that science is a nearly perfect tool wielded by imperfect creatures, us. Human beings have desires, ideas, and preconceptions that can distort the required objectivity at times. It can be hard to maintain a complete freedom of bias and so when you see situations like you speak of, to me it perhaps reflects more that individual’s perceptions. Nobody is perfect, even in science, and so there can be some off base or conflicting opinions at times, after all Scientists are not always in agreement even within the same field. The method itself is nevertheless solid and we still have to play by its rules if cryptozoology it to be taken seriously. Even with ghosts or other phenomena, if someone can somehow present a sound case for them, I’m sure those would be considered too. It’s just such a jarring notion compared to what we now know, that such evidence had better be something else.
Science is not the same thing as a legal trial; the rigorous standards of science are far different from the standards in a court of law. It’s as simple as that. To expect one to operate under the same standards as the other is a fallacy.
Good question, but let’s take the first sentence in the above quote to start off with: it is not that scientists “think” that eyewitness sightings can simply be tossed; rather, it’s a simple fact that eyewitness sightings, in a scientific sense are the very least reliable forms of evidence there is, for any given phenomena. There are a number of reasons for this: human beings are prone to error; they easily make mistakes judging size, distance and identity of things they see. Human beings are emotional, and are capable of convincing themselves that they’ve seen something dramatic, when in fact they’ve seen something of a mundane nature that, for whatever reason, looked odd or out of place—but was not, in fact, anything unknown or earth-shaking. Human beings are also capable of lying, of making up stories–for any number of reasons.
It isn’t, therefore, that scientists want to ignore eyewitnesses/anecdotal material; it’s simply that, given the rigors that science MUST operate under, they’re forced to lend only a certain amount of weight to these kinds of sightings and anecdotal stories.
The last question is a good one though: so what do we do with sightings? And of course the answer is that in bulk they must count for something. Count for what? That science cannot say, because it would be drawing a conclusion. And the problem with anecdotal “evidence” is…. there’s no way to go back and examine it. All you have is… a person’s words. “I saw this…” followed by a description. It allows for very little examination. It becomes mainly a game of speculation. This is a brick wall for science. It doesn’t allow for much speculation; it demands facts and material that can be empirically examined and tested.
I think a lot of people mistake this impasse as an unwillingness on the part of scientists to listen to or consider the eyewitness and the material he/she brings to the table. But it isn’t that at all. Rather, it’s simply that there’s only so much you can do with it.
Again, science is not a court of law. The court can lend a great deal of credence to an eyewitness; oftentimes it must. The court deals in probabilities, in a sense. Science does not, at least not in the same sense.
I don’t know of any scientists who go “half-cocked” on opposing cryptids. Scientists do occasionally, behave badly–they’re human. They sometimes forget themselves. But every scientist I’ve ever known—and I’ve known plenty–are honest and faithful about their belief in the scientific method, and that an open mind is always the firm basis of this. I think, to be frank, that you’re making a rather prodigious mountain out of what is less than an anthill. It can have a wonderful melodramatic force to it, to cry foul at imagined scientists barring the way to True Knowledge; but such things don’t actually mirror reality–this fear, this melodrama, belongs in novels and films. In real life, scientists are just people trying to do their job–and most of them believe in it, believe in what they do, and believe in the rigor under which they are compelled to operate. And the great majority of them would be thrilled to be the one that discovers a true unknown–certainly they would not be opposed to a search for it.
rbhess, your point about the place of anecdotal evidence is excellent. It does seem that people in the cryptozoological community — be they actual researchers, armchair researchers, commentators (no small number of those being Ms. Llewtrah’s “hangers-on”) — would have scientists accept anecdotal evidence as hard evidence. Your distinction between science and its demands in contrast to those of a court of law is astute and right on the mark.
The frustration some feel with respect to this, I think, lies in the fact that the body of anecdotal evidence does not even cause a most scientists to go so far as to consider that such a great body of anecdotal evidence, with consistent descriptions and details occuring over a span of well over a century (much longer if one accepts traditional native tales as anecdotal evidence), might point to the possibility of the presence of a phenomenon that is outside the current span of scientific knowledge. As you so rightly say, the scientific paradigm can only do so much with it. (Let us not, however, overlook the fact that the social sciences are disciplines in which anecdotal evidence does carry a bit more weight, vis a vis the physical sciences.) Add to that the instances where physical evidence and work done on it — “the Meldrum fiasco” as mystery_man termed it — has been dismissed, and the frustration that many feel is quite understandable. Admittedly much of the physical evidence that has been gathered with respect to sasquatch, at least, has not been great; but it is not useless and does not merit immediate dismissal, as too often SEEMS to be the case.
Finally, I have to thank you for causing me to break into a long, warm, grin:
This, indeed, is a very interesting choice of words.
(And since it’s the 40th anniversary of the Patterson-Gimlin film…)
Cheers.
rbhess:
“Science is not the same thing as a legal trial; the rigorous standards of science are far different from the standards in a court of law. It’s as simple as that. To expect one to operate under the same standards as the other is a fallacy.”
Absolutely correct. We’ve talked about that here before, many times. And totally beside the point I’m trying to make.
“It isn’t, therefore, that scientists want to ignore eyewitnesses/anecdotal material; it’s simply that, given the rigors that science MUST operate under, they’re forced to lend only a certain amount of weight to these kinds of sightings and anecdotal stories.”
Absolutely correct. But that “certain amount” should be expected to vary, depending on whether one person saw a ghost, or thousands of people, across the continent, who are almost certainly not comparing notes, are describing the same animal. R! S! R!
“The last question is a good one though: so what do we do with sightings? And of course the answer is that in bulk they must count for something. Count for what? That science cannot say, because it would be drawing a conclusion. And the problem with anecdotal “evidence” is…. there’s no way to go back and examine it.”
Science can say what anecdotes count for, and has, many times. The gorilla, the okapi, and the saola were found by people who said: the anecdotal evidence counts for a followup look. It’s a common skeptical red herring to say that anecdotal evidence can’t be gone back over. That’s not what you do with it. You FOLLOW IT UP. You go where a lot of sightings seem to be, and look. Worked for Roger Patterson. The “facts and material that can be empirically examined and tested” do not happen unless the initial, non-conclusive hints are followed up. Which is, incidentally, just the way it works in criminal justice: hearsay is hearsay…until the investigation turns up the solid evidence.
I just need to ask here: if science is scared stiff to act on anything non-conclusive, because that would be drawing a conclusion, um, how do scientists discover stuff? Honest question; I’d really want to know the answer.
“I don’t know of any scientists who go “half-cocked” on opposing cryptids.”
Sure you do. If you have ever heard a scientist use the words “unlikely” or “probably not” - as I have, more than once - in describing his assessment of the sasquatch, you’ve heard half-cocked. The very rigor you defend as essential to proper science demands this: if you say the animal’s existence is not likely, you must establish a percentage probability, and back it up with evidence. Or else you’re just taking a holiday blathering. There is - as I have said many times - only one rational scientific take on the sasquatch: I haven’t seen proof yet, and await it. Period. And I have never - and I have said this many times - heard a scientist with a significant level of understanding of the evidence say anything less than this: the animal’s existence is a legitimate subject of scientific investigation. Don’t bother to look for an exception: you will not find one.
“I think, to be frank, that you’re making a rather prodigious mountain out of what is less than an anthill.”
Nah, not really, unless you’re talking about the evidence, which is, well, quite a hill. In fact, I’d be willing to wager money that no animal has ever left more evidence than the sasquatch without either being discovered, or science conducting a significant inquiry into its existence.
“It can have a wonderful melodramatic force to it, to cry foul at imagined scientists barring the way to True Knowledge.”
Nah, not really, it’s just true, when you have scientists saying that the sasquatch “probably” doesn’t exist, and providing no backup for their claims other than the same old urban ignoramus no-one’s-found-a-body-yet. (Really? How does he know?) Scientists saying “probably not” based on no evidence are abusing science.
“And the great majority of them would be thrilled to be the one that discovers a true unknown–certainly they would not be opposed to a search for it.”
REALLY. Then, would it hurt so much for them to simply come out, as a body, and say that? Why are they afraid of being fired for saying that? Why do scientists in fields having nothing to do with the sasquatch flatly call for Jeff Meldrum’s tenure? Don’t you think that if scientists really believed that, and publicly expressed it, an expedition would have been in the Northern California woods by 1968 to confirm Patterson’s film?
Just doing a purity check.
First to answer the question at hand, llewtrah is just bashing at those who choose to look at things in a different fashion than what is popular…were the crypto’s…amateur and even the fanatical, to give up and give in to tripe like that, she might well be right, but the fact is what makes cryptozoologists: new, old, careful and foolhardy, is the fact that we do not give up day after day even when we cannot produce a body…that is the strength of the group as a whole…it does not give us less credence, hell, science has made plenty of blunders over the centuries of its existence and continues to do so even today.
Cryptozoology is a science of looking for what others do not, or dismiss…it is about looking beyond the boundaries of known ideas…and sure you are going to have extremists on both sides, but that does not make it any less legitimate…only those who wish to minimize the study want to make cryptozoology behave and act in particular ways as a community. Individually, I applaud those who walk out on a limb to take a stance…even when they fall–it doesn’t mean everything related to an idea is false either…even when a hoax shows up and some people fall for it, IT DOES NOT negate the rest of the sightings and evidence at hand.
I see hoaxes as a benchmark for cryptozoologists to look harder and more carefully at evidence, not a negation of the creature in question…which is a mistake that skeptics and so called scientists try to use over and over.
And as far as the science as religion thing: science and religion are related when science dismisses hypothesis (things such as bigfoot, loch ness, etc.) for simplistic reasons or outlandish reasons, just because science cannot even accept the possibility that other large creatures exist out there. Science and religion are often being related to one another lately because science in certain circles is so close minded and so rigid in its interpretation of what science really is, that it mimics fundamentalist religious thought that is close minded and intolerant of other ideas.
That is where the real correlation comes from…and I am with a growing number of people…science is becoming narrow minded and working with blinders on so that it immediately discards information that does not fall into some “normal” set of parameters. The more rigid science becomes, the more people will questions the validity and the sound thinking behind science when it comes up against things like cryptozoology.
And when skeptics who spout the scientific process, and hide behind it without reallllllllllly knowing what they are talking about just in an effort to discredit cryptozoology, they actually end up hurting their own claims as well as the scientific process. People who read about science are no more knowledgeable about Bigfoot than people who read about bigfoot. They like to pretend that they do, and they like to let everyone else know what credentials they have, but they are no more of an authority on whether a big primate is roaming the woods or whether a large sea critter is wandering the waters than a cryptozoology amateur.
End of story.
Back again–science or non, the fact is people are encountering things in the wilds and in the waters that science cannot satisfactorily explain. If they could there would be no need for cryptozoology.
However, there are many things science cannot solve…as was said earlier up there somewhere, science does not have all the answers…and personally I do not expect such out of science…the problem is when skeptics and scoftics try to improperly use scientific processes (or twist some portion of scientific thought) to explain away something that cannot legitimately be done.
Case in point is eye witness testimony for BF (personally I prefer swimming critters, but I am all for giving BF equal time in my postings). Scoftics/skeptics say that eye witness testimony is not proof that a BF is out and running around. Well maybe, maybe not…however, the fact is that something is being seen out in the wilds that is not bears, hoaxers and odd shadows…and so far science cannot come up with any explanation that covers it…there are theories, but some of the theories are more laughable than a BF actually existing.
It is those who dig in their heels and dismiss everything that cause the rest of us who do have common sense to stand up and question the scientific community when it holds its breath because it cannot come up with an answer, but dismisses the possibility of an actual critter so far unknown to science just because it is as big as us and, heaven forbid, may have intelligence and savvy like us.
I’ve said it before and I will keep saying it: if the skeptics truly have an open mind (which in fact what science is all about), then I have no problem with them saying, “At present I do not believe BF exists because for me there is not enough empirical evidence, but it is still a possibility.”
It’s just the jokers who say things like “I would love for there to be a BF, but there just is no evidence” who I roll my eyes at, because they are not truly in the scientific process at all, but just using portions of scientific ideas to try to dissuade everyone else that there is nothing to look for.
Go ahead and tell me eye witness accounts do not make enough evidence for you personally, but don’t tell me that there is no basis at all for creatures because all eye witness testimony is false, hallucinations or misidentifications…that is the popular version of cutting off your empirical nose to spite your pseudo-scientific face…
springheeledjack: as usual, great posts.
Passionate; you eschew my measured conservatism.
But correct.
See an interesting sidebar in a 2006 issue of “Scientific American” for a scientist going off half-cocked on the sasquatch. (It was the special edition, “Becoming Human: Evolution and the Rise of Intelligence.”) The article in which the sidebar appears, “Planet of the Apes,” is about the Miocene radiation of apes through the Old World. What this sidebar is doing in here, unless it’s a silly broadside, escapes me.
Note: the article I mention above apparently originally appeared in the August 2003 SA (which from what I’m seeing, you have to order, and pay for). But it reappeared in the special edition I mention.
If someone else can find an online copy, that would be cool.
[sigh] please don’t make me do a painful, point-by-point recapitulation. Trust me: the intent of the sidebar is obvious. The title? “Bigfoot Ballyhoo.”
THAT’S open-minded.
Eureka! Found the article.
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/anthropology/Faculty/Begun/begunSciAm.pdf
Closed-mindedness at work within. Read, and be enlightened.
(Enlightenment available upon request.)
Sounds like this guy read “springheeledjack’s Guide To Sounding Open on a Topic When You Are As Closed As The Edsel Plant.”
I have enjoyed reading the posts on this topic: Thought provoking and all round good stuff. (I especially liked rhbness’ commonsense comments on “sightings”). Here are some of my thoughts on cryptozoology.
Professional Cryptozoology
Cryptozoology should be a sub-branch of the scientific discipline of zoology. As such, we would expect zoologists to study, research, and field investigate suspected cryptids (suspected because of tracks found, other possible tangible evidences, and well attested sightings). Such studies should be presented in typical scientific fashion, open to criticism and peer review. This implies a two way street: cases for alleged cryptids should be put forth tentatively and not dogmatically by advocates, and the scientific “establishment” should be open to critiquing said cases and not simply ignore them.
Professional cryptozoologists would hold relevant degrees in the life sciences, as well as in psychology and folk lore (given the cultural aspect of some well publicized, alleged cryptids).While some practicing scientists consider themselves cryptozoologists, or are sympathetic to the aims of cryptozoologists, I do not know if cryptozoology is on the threshold of scientific accreditation as a sub-branch of zoology.
Amateur Cryptozoology
Those who criticize cryptozoology on the grounds that there are few, if any, new types of animals to be found today, are clearly wrong. The recent finds in Vietnam prove the contrary. Amateur cryptozoogists are valuable to the field because they are the extra eyes and hands needed to advance various cases, since the scientific establishment often moves slowly with research and grant money (especially concerning non-essential topics such as cryptids.)
Such amateurs I would hope to be well grounded in the relevant sciences, fair and open minded, and concerned most with an objective understanding of the phenomena under question.Amateurs in astronomy and amateur paleontologists have often made discoveries benefiting their more formal scientific brothers and sisters; there is no reason why amateur cryptozoolgists could not be similarly beneficial.
Enchanted Cryptozoology
Here is where cryptozoology runs into opposition and formal rejection. This view does not simply propose the possibility of rare unknown animals, but rather champions doubtlessly a whole world of unknown creatures. And these creatures are not of the mundane variety, a new deer in southeast Asia or a new species of finch in Central America, but rather are highly romantic and extravagant creatures, giant ape-men in the forests of America, prehistoric whales surviving in lakes in Scotland.
In this view, sightings may stand alone as sure “evidence” (as long as the sightings conform to the preconceived; for instance, the Spicer sighting endures while the Chruickshank sighting is forgotten). Enchanted cryptozoology sometimes comes perilously close to a quasi-mysticism, where accepting the Patterson film, for instance, can help you “grow” as a person (or better yet, don’t do any “thinking” at all about the film, just let the image wash over you and awe you in it’s enchantment).
Enchanted cryptozoology has its “monsters” to find, and its bogeymen to fend off. Its bogeymen are threefold: mainstream science, skeptics, and mainstream media. While the enchanted cryptozoologists decry the alleged “close-mindedness” of others who do not share their enthusiasms, they state without a modest doubt that there is “no way” the Patterson film could be faked or that it is ridiculous to suggest Ness may not hold a giant unknown creature.
My previous posts may have sounded all doom and gloom about cryptozoology, but those were just some things that worried me. Mostly I am actually upbeat about the future of this field.
Despite my complaints that I mentioned above, I think there are a lot of informed, intelligent, and level headed people involved in crytpozoology. There are certainly scientists who are sympathetic to the field if not actively involved in it. Not all Bigfoot organizations are rag tag groups of weekend warriors out monster hunting either. For example, I know there are some groups out there looking for sasquatch that are taking a decidedly scientific approach to the search and I hope that becomes the standard for all field research done. Underfunded and stretched for resources as they may be, they are still out there and it seems they are applying sound methods, which to me can only be a positive thing. It is in these types of operations that I see hope for cryptozoology gaining momentum as a recognized science. If Bigfoot is indeed out there, any evidence found to that effect will only cause this field to pick up speed to the point that it will become very difficult to ignore sasquatch. Mainstream science for whatever reasons may not be taking much interest in creatures such as the sasquatch at this time, but I think more scientists will step forward and become more involved as the case for sasquatch becomes undeniable. This will also embolden those scientists that are sympathetic to cryptozoology, but are unwilling or unable to become fully involved with it.
Loren said a nice quote on another post and it really rang true for me, as many things on this site do. He was basically saying that this is not the age of Ptolemy, we need a few Copernicuses. That was really quite right. Nothing new is ever discovered, especially nothing radically new, without someone taking the initiative to look or take the search for the truth down sometimes little trodden paths. While I personally think there is nothing irrefutable available with regards to sasquatch and am more or less an open minded skeptic, there is no reason why we can’t delve a little deeper and I’m all for leaving open these avenues of research. Whether sasquatch exist or not, I am happy that so many are enthusiastic enough to pursue this mystery and follow up on the leads we have, as scant as those may be sometimes. Science does have its rigors and strict processes, but it is true that there is nothing unscientific about trying to follow a theory to see where it leads. There is a bit of unscientific thinking displayed by some in this field at times, as I mentioned, but this is not the norm. The fact that so many in this community ARE doing things in a scientific manner and doggedly pursuing the evidence gives me hope that, if it is indeed there, it won’t be long before the concrete evidence required to appease mainstream science will be found.
So I am optimistic. I hope nobody thought I was just crypto bashing in my earlier posts.
I was just letting off steam with some of my frustrations. Like I said, i just have high hopes for cryptozoology and want it to be as good as it can be.