|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2002 : 20:41:03
|
Again, this is not a real poll, but again I am curious as to what people think of this topic.
Which of the following would you say is a true statement?
1) There are no more unknown large (ie, cat-size or bigger) animal species waiting to be discovered.
2) There are unknown large animal species waiting to be discovered, but no fantastic animals like sasquatches, lake monsters, sea serpents, etc.
3) All forms of "hidden animals" -- even seemingly fantastic ones -- are likely to exist and are waiting to be discovered.
Again, thank you for your replies.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all!
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2002 : 21:22:31 [Permalink]
|
MY problem with cryptozology as with most other forms of pseudoscience is not mainly the type or sort of knowledge they claim, but the methodolgy they use. Cryptozology is unscientific.
There are many undiscovered species of animals out there and especially in the depth of the oceans there is still room for quite big ones.
The problem is that cryptozolgists make absurd claims by taking myths at face value and then when real scientist discover a previously unkonw species they take this as confirmation for their theories even though they did not predict this paticular species. The discovery of some small almost extinct nocturnal rodent in depths of some jungle does not in any way make the existaence of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster more likely.
|
 |
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2002 : 08:34:35 [Permalink]
|
I have to go with #2 here.
Not only do we discover new species in remote areas, but we also routinely redefine existing taxonomy often either grouping separate species into one or splitting one species into multiples.
A perfect example would be some species of New World Monkeys where originally classified as one species, but after further research now are half a dozen species.
These are in essence "unknown large animal species".
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2002 : 10:46:09 [Permalink]
|
I agree with Lars. The problem with Cryptozoologists is that they come to a conclusion ("Bigfoot exists, dammit!"), then proceed to search out "supporting" evidence while blatantly discarding evidence to the contrary.
It is, at this time, unreasonable to conclude that Bigfoot, the Yeti, or the Loch Ness Monster exists. Chances are too great that we would have found them, or evidence of them, by now. It is bad science to continue to believe (and it is a belief here) otherwise.
------------
You can tell she's hydrolic...
Her silver scream is supersonic
You can see the mercury smear in her eye... |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2002 : 20:20:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
2) There are unknown large animal species waiting to be discovered, but no fantastic animals like sasquatches, lake monsters, sea serpents, etc.
Definitely.
But what I find almost comical about cryptozoologists is that, while they are continually expounding upon the flimsiest of evidence for sasquatches, lake monsters, chupacabras and the like, they continually miss genuine discoveries. In the past few years we have seen new large species of mammals from Viet Nam, two new populations of coelacanths, several birds hiding right under our noses, and at least one large shark. When we check the cryptozoological literature to see if they anticipated any of these, we find a big fat ZERO!
Gotta go, there's a skunk ape out in the yard.
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom. |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 07/27/2002 : 23:22:59 [Permalink]
|
I would lean toward "No. 2" in your poll, but "crytozoology" aside, let's remember that there are still undiscovered creatures lurking in Earth's oceans. Some are known but have not really been photographed (such as giant squid), and some have been discovered within the last 20 years (unusual deep water worms, fish, and ocean bottom "walking" creatures, as well as animals that live under iceburgs and near hot undersea lava vents.)
"Speaking without thinking like shooting without aiming." - Charlie Chan |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2002 : 10:47:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I agree with Lars. The problem with Cryptozoologists is that they come to a conclusion ("Bigfoot exists, dammit!"), then proceed to search out "supporting" evidence while blatantly discarding evidence to the contrary.
Regrettably, many lay cryptozoologists do that, but the true professional scientists do not. The pages of "Cryptozoology", the publication organ of the International Society for Cryptozoology, often contains debate over the quality of evidence presented and how that data should be interpreted. The society even goes so far as to discourage people from pursuing a career in cryptozoology; instead they recommend a career in an estabished field of zoology or biology, and that any cryptozoological research be low-key and secondary to one's main topic of research.
quote:
It is, at this time, unreasonable to conclude that Bigfoot, the Yeti, or the Loch Ness Monster exists. Chances are too great that we would have found them, or evidence of them, by now. It is bad science to continue to believe (and it is a belief here) otherwise.
The problem is these creatures have been found, but eyewitness testimony is doscounted as at best anecdotal or at worst delusion, halucination, or lies. And evidence has been revealed, but the photographs/movies are discounted as fakes or mistaken identifications, the foorprint casts are discounted as fakes or insufficient evidence, the hair/skin/feces are discounted as fakes or ambiguous, etc. That leaves carcasses as the only "legitimate" evidence acceptable, and even then, like the first platypus skin, they too could be discounted as frauds. So apparently only a live specimen would be acceptable. The problem is that the places where these creatures live is damned difficult to explore properly, must less hunt in. It would take a major expedition, possibly of the scale seen in "Jurassic Park II" to bring back a live specimen or several dead ones.
And it is, at this time, unreasonable to believe that any government agency or corporate entity would fund an expedition of that size to hunt down and capture or kill a creature which as you say is bad science to believe may exist.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2002 : 10:56:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And it is, at this time, unreasonable to believe that any government agency or corporate entity would fund an expedition of that size to hunt down and capture or kill a creature which as you say is bad science to believe may exist.
You're joking right? Fox News would fund such an expedition in a heartbeat if they thought they had a 1% chance of finding a Sasquatch.
But since the only physical evidence we have are doctored photos and other phony examples yet mysteriously have nothing like a real bone to examine. Well...I don't buy it. At least when we are talking about things like Nessies and Bigfoot since they are so fantastic and have been so well studied despite their being anything significant to go on.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2002 : 11:01:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But what I find almost comical about cryptozoologists is that, while they are continually expounding upon the flimsiest of evidence for sasquatches, lake monsters, chupacabras and the like, they continually miss genuine discoveries. In the past few years we have seen new large species of mammals from Viet Nam, two new populations of coelacanths, several birds hiding right under our noses, and at least one large shark. When we check the cryptozoological literature to see if they anticipated any of these, we find a big fat ZERO!
I'm not sure what you mean by "cryptozoological literature", but considering that professional cryptozoological scientists are encouraged by professional societies to keep their cryptozoologocal research low-key, it is perhaps small wonder that many miss discoveries that less inhibited colleagues are able to make. As long as you do not say ahead of time that your cryptozoological research led you believe the Vietnam deer-goats the natives spoke of were real, then your discovery of them is more likely to proceed unhindered, and is more likely to be believed.
The thing is, legends and myths have often played an important role in the discovery of new large animals, going back as far as the discovery of the mountain gorilla at the turn of the last century. All it takes is for one hunter/scientist to take local legends seriously to discover the animal that is the basis for such legends. I would imagine that that was as much a driving force for those who discovered the deer-goats as was any other line of evidence. After all, before you can even discover a new animal you have to know it exists, and the best source for information that it does exist is the local people, including their legends.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2002 : 11:13:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You're joking right?
To the same extent that Tokyodreamer is joking when he unilaterally declares that it is unreasonable to take their possible existence seriously, with virtually no evidence to support his claim.
But then as you said, Fox News would mount an expedition only if it felt reasonably certain that it could find something. Since they agree with Tokyodreamer that it is unreasonable to think that any of these creatures might exist, they consider it unreasonable to mount such an expedition.
quote:
But since the only physical evidence we have are doctored photos and other phony examples yet mysteriously have nothing like a real bone to examine. Well...I don't buy it.
Thank you for reiterating my point. All evidence except for dead cacass/live specimen is automatically rejected. So with no firm evidence to demonstrate the reality of these creatures (dead carcass/live specimen), it is unreasonable to believe (and it is belief at this point) that a major expedition would be funded to go collect such evidence (dead carcass/live specimen). An obvious Catch-22.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2002 : 12:33:19 [Permalink]
|
What exactly is your definition of Cryptozoology and what is good and professional cryptozoologist echthroi_man?
You are saying that my view of cyrptozoology is wrong, because the real crytozoologist are hiding and those that get much publicity are not real cryptozoologist.
So how exactly is good cryptozoologist different from the fake ones.
Do real Cryptozoologists believe in The Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot and the Yeti. Do they go for living dinosaurs and dragons?
Do real Cryptozoologists ever abondon a theory?
Have real Cryptozoologists ever predicted the existence of an undiscovered species, that was later found.
And most importantly is there a shorter word for Cryptozoologists. (It really annoying to type this long word in again and again.)
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2002 : 12:35:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
You're joking right?
To the same extent that Tokyodreamer is joking when he unilaterally declares that it is unreasonable to take their possible existence seriously, with virtually no evidence to support his claim.
Evidence to support my claim?! I'm not the one who has to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist.
Why do you think mainstream scientists would have any interest in suppressing a genuine discovery of this magnitude? You are not saying Bigfoot might exist, you are saying we have evidence that he does, but that there is some scientific conspiracy to keep it hidden. Show us this evidence.
------------
You can tell she's hydrolic...
Her silver scream is supersonic
You can see the mercury smear in her eye... |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 07:42:42 [Permalink]
|
This is in response to Lars' questions.
We could call them cryptoZs if you like, provided that term does not become a slur.
Cryptozoology is the study of hidden animals. Hidden animals refer to creatures whose existence is known or suspected, but who are not yet recognized by mainstream science. It does not mean creatures whose existenced is completely unknown. You can't study something that no one knows exists, but you can study something that mainstream science has not recognized yet. As such, you would not expect any cryptoZ to "predict" the existence of a creature for which no evidence of its reality exists. It is therefore improper to say that, because cryptoZs failed to predict the discovery of creatures totally unknown to anyone before their discovery, their science has failed. The proper test is to have them predict the existence of an officially unrecognized creature and then discover it.
By the way, when I say a creature known or suspected to exist, I mean creatures whose existence are theorized based on legends of the local indigenous population, eyewitness accounts, photographs and films, and such physical evidence as tracks, excrement, and skin or bones, etc.
I made no distinction between real or true or false cryptoZs, just between those who are professional scientists and those who are lay investigators. I made no claim that lay investigators are not true cryptoZs. I did not say that scientist cryptoZs are "hiding", only that they are encouraged to keep their cryptoZ research low-key.
Having said that, however, it is the lay investigator who is more likely to make extravagant claims or dogmatically proclaim the (unproven) existence of certain spectacular creatures or use the media (including the internet) as a bully pulpit. The professional scientists tend to do what any professional scientist does: publish their speculations and findings in journals.
Some professional scientist crytoZs do argue in favor of the existence of sasquatches, lake monsters, living fossil dinosaurs, etc., but just as many argue against their existence. Among professional scientist cryptoZs the field is quite eclectic, with opinions ranging from hyperskepticism to virtual outright credulity. Am,ong lay investigators, the field tends to be more narrow, and tends more towards credulity and the spectacular creatures, but even in this bunch one can find the odd skeptic, even hyperskeptic.
As yet professional scientist cryptoZs have no theories per se, just informed speculation supported by circumstancial and anecdotal evidence. So in the vast majority of cases the jury is still out. I cannot say if any speculations have been abandoned, but even in mainstream science researchers very rarely publically announce when they have abandoned a theory or a line of investigation, so I would not expect professional scientist cryptoZs to do likewise.
I have already delt with your last two questions above.
I hope that helps to clear things up; if not, please feel free to ask any additional questions.
And please, call me IH.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 08:03:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Evidence to support my claim?! I'm not the one who has to prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist.
That is a common error among self-proclaimed skeptics, especially those with little or no scientific training.
In science a researcher proposes a theory and provides evidence to support it. A critic can respond in one of three ways:
1) Question the veracity of the data
2) Question whether the proposed conclusion follows logically from the presented data
3) Claim that the conclusion is incorrect on theoretical grounds.
Critics are not required to present their own evidence to support 1 or 2, though if they do their critiques will be taken more seriously. However, critics are required to present data to support 3. 3 is in essence theproposing of an alternative theory to explain the data. That is taken by other scientists to be a positive claim, even if the point of the claim is to deny the reality of the original theory.
You do not simply question the veracity of the data or whether the conclusion follows logically from the evidence; you are also stating that such creatures cannot exist. As such, you are proposing an alternative explanation based on theoretical grounds. It is therefore your responsibility to support and defend your counter theory with evidence.
And before you start in with the old canard of not being able to prove a negative, scientists do it all the time. In fact, it is often often easier to prove that a theory is impossible than that it is real.
If you know something cryptoZs do not, something that demonstrate the impossibility of sasquatches or lake monsters or whatever, please feel free to present your argument and the evidence to support it. Otherwise please do not make bald statements of unproven "fact".
quote:
Why do you think mainstream scientists would have any interest in suppressing a genuine discovery of this magnitude? You are not saying Bigfoot might exist, you are saying we have evidence that he does, but that there is some scientific conspiracy to keep it hidden.
I made no such claim; I merely stated that the general reaction among mainstream scientists, as it is here on this forum, is to reject all evidence out of hand except for dead carcass/live specimen. There is no conspiracy on this forum to suppress evidence, but the concensus opinion, as eloquantely stated by atomic is dismiss such evidence as "doctored" or "phoney". The same concensus exists among mainstream scientists.
Now, fortunately in science there are always mavericks who like to oppose the prevailing concensus and think for themselves. These are the people who do cryptoZ research.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all!
Edited by - echthroi_man on 07/29/2002 08:05:49 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 08:14:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
but the concensus opinion, as eloquantely stated by atomic is dismiss such evidence as "doctored" or "phoney". The same concensus exists among mainstream scientists.
No that's not what I said. What I said was that such evidence in the past for some popular creatures has been doctored or faked. For a few creatures this is all that exists. Excuse me for being skeptical in light of this.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 09:22:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No that's not what I said. What I said was that such evidence in the past for some popular creatures has been doctored or faked. For a few creatures this is all that exists. Excuse me for being skeptical in light of this.
My apologies for misrepresenting you, then. I can only say that it also sounded like that was your opinion of any such evidence, future as well as past. Considering that a fair amount of past evidence was not doctored or phony, that seemed a reasonable assumption to make in light of your hasty conclusion.
My apologies again for inadvertantly misrepresenting your opinion.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
