Talk:Cryptozoology/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 1 September 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Cryptozoology is not pseudoscience

Cryptozoology is not belief in cryptids, it is study of cryptids. Cryptozoologists do not try to prove existence of cryptid, they simply investigate the case and concludes whether it is really a new creature or previously known misidentified creature or simply hoax. Ameranthropoides loysi 08:11, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Good point. But only in the sense that actual ghost busters and other paranormal investigators investigate things. One's conclusions are likely to be based on what one's belief is to start with and sometimes you'll even screw your methods around to reach that conclusion. ArmondikoV^postate 08:21, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Presumably you mean "you" in the expansive sense, rather than this Ameranth person in particular, yes? --Kels 08:24, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, certainly. I re-edited to be "one", which is the more general sense. If that's clearer. But the thing is, if these creatures did exist, and they are found, then it ceases to becryptozoology and simply becomes zoology (cf. Alternative medicine). And in general, cryptozoology does refer to the outright belief in the existence of such animals, not just the (relatively) legitimate arm that investigates them scientifically. ArmondikoV^postate 08:30, 17 December 2008 (EST)

At the risk of sounding Ed-like, do the legit researchers actually refer to themselves as "cryptozoologists", or just plain "zoologists investigating claims of unusual species"? --Kels 08:33, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I have no idea. Worth looking into. If they were just normal zoologists investigating claims, then they'd be zoologists and the "crypto" part just wouldn't exist. ArmondikoV^postate 08:48, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Merge with cryptids?

Would it be a good idea to merge the cryptid article into the cryptozoology one, since these terms are so closely linked? It would fill out this stub more satisfactorily, & in any case you can't really define crytozoology without discussing what a cryptid is. weaseLOId~ 08:36, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Crypid as either a list or category would work I think. If we have it as a separate article, it's worth being a bit more extensive. If not, merge. ArmondikoV^postate 09:04, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Definition

MSN defines Cryptozoology as the study of imaginary creatures or fabled creatures such as the Loch Ness monster or the yeti [1]. Ameranthropoides loysi 08:43, 17 December 2008 (EST)

MSN defines Cryptozoology as the study of imaginary creatures or fabled creatures such as the Loch Ness monster or the yeti? ArmondikoV^postate 08:47, 17 December 2008 (EST)

So what if it does? That's pretty much what our definition is as well. I can see the word study within the first line of the article. . . weaseLOId~ 08:49, 17 December 2008 (EST)

If I study the effect of Fleeble on Madagascar horniman Waffles, does that legitimise the subject of fleeble/waffle interaction? Of course not, merely studying something does not make it science; if it did then spiritualism would be a school subject. Toast 09:01, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Hmm...there are legitimate researchers, and lots of them, who specialize in myths and legends. Doesn't mean the myths are true. This seems to be sort of a case where physical researchers look into local folklore, or am I headed in the wrong direction here? --Kels 09:12, 17 December 2008 (EST)

The difference is that folklorists study the myths themselves, rather than studying the subjects of them like dragons. . . . I've added some content to this article to reflect the fact that cryptozoology is a loose term & practitioners vary in their scientific or unscientific approach. I had a look at the Wikipedia article. Unsurprisingly, it seems there are a minority of scientists who favour cryptozoology being taken seriously. But WP is still defining it as a pseudoscience. weaseLOId~ 09:45, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Well, if a description along those lines is included in the article, then I'm just fine with it being defined as a pseudoscience. --Kels 09:49, 17 December 2008 (EST)

(EC) Quote:"...if these creatures did exist, and they are found, then it ceases to be cryptozoology and simply becomes zoology ..." Armondikov, above. Says it all. The study of "cryptozoologists" isn't pseudoscience, but cryptozoology itself is.

^Marmite

on Toast

09:52, 17 December 2008 (EST)

As with "paranormal" or "supernatural" phenomena - if these things are proven scientifically, they will be redefined as normal & natural. If a Bigfoot, for example, is proven to exist, then it will no longer be defined as a cryptid. weaseLOId~ 10:00, 17 December 2008 (EST)

(undent)

Am I alone in sniffing a "Rusty Spotted Cat" or "CUR" around some of the edits by Ameranthropoides loysi?

^Marmite

on Toast

10:49, 17 December 2008 (EST)

I don't know if your alone, but it wasn't me. Though I agree with him. Anyway, a cryptozoologist just looks for undiscovered creatures. So, for example, if I went and tried to find some kind of previously unknown cat, I'm a crytozoologist. Anyway, okapis were cryptids. The fact is, we know that there are undiscovered species. Cryptozoologists just look for them. Sure, Bigfoot's crazy, but cryptozoologists look for some not-so-crazies too, such as the long-finned sperm whale. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistor^cat! 11:06, 17 December 2008 (EST)

FFS

There is little to no information on the high-finned sperm whale. One man is credited with sighting one. It's a hypotheitcal creature at the momenent. There have been hundreds of sightings of the Chupacabra. It may not exist, but the similarities in the accounts give more weight then various other cryptids.DSFARGEG 21:26, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, but it is more believable then goat-suckers. Millions of people have reported seeing UFO's, as opposed to the couple hundred that have seen me. Guess which one is more likely real. --"CUR^talk 21:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

Technically neither since there is no actual evidence to support them.DSFARGEG 21:32, 16 February 2009 (EST)

So you don't believe I exist? If so, I rest my case. --"CUR^talk 21:33, 16 February 2009 (EST)

skunky ape

"In 2000, photographs of the ape were sent anonymously to the Sarasota Sheriff's Department in Florida. In an accompanying letter, a woman claimed to have taken the photo from in her backyard. She went on to describe the ape taking apples from a bushel in her yard, believing it to be an escaped orangutan. Loren Coleman"

This makes no sense. It goes from anonymous to knowing it was a woman to a name standing alone, followed by a footnote that doesn't really seem to explain anything useful (except the EL which I guess a source?). ħuman 01:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I read the article. It has nothing to do with the skunky ape, it's just a puff piece on Loren Coleman. ħuman 02:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just removing the Skunk Ape stuff. In hindsight the sources are terrible and it seems to be in the fringes of cryptozoology . --^{Ask me about your mother} 02:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I put it back and reworked it a bit, found a "reference" for the photo story that also shows them. There is no "fringe" of CZ, it's all fringe! ħuman 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course "anonymous" photos are very thin evidence of anything! ħuman 04:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Since cryptozoology deals with cyptids, which are associated with local legends, it should be a topic of folklore. So cryptozoology is a topic within folklore studies, not pseudoscience. Thoughts? --Bigfooteorls (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Cryptozoology as science vs. as pseudoscience

"As such, crytozoologists vary from highly qualified zoologists with an interest in unproven species, to amateur Bigfoot enthusiasts."

The former group is doing real science. They are simply taking a hypothesis and testing it. Last time I checked, the scientific method does not care where your hypothesis come from. That means that cryptozoology can be classified as a science (albeit one with a relatively low number of practitioners,) and all the amateur Bigfoot enthusiasts can go get their own name as a group and leave science alone. ^{— Unsigned, by: Tesseract / talk / contribs}

Wikiverse Links

The Cryptopedia wiki is here [2]. Possibilities for outsourcing/interlinking? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Beast of Gévaudan

I was watching Brotherhood of the Wolf and thought, "hey, what a great movie about reason triumphing over superstition and fear!" I sat down to write a Film article about it, but when I researched it, I learned that the Beast of Gévaudan was actually a thing and not entirely fictional, which means it would also have a home here (or under the Cryptozoology template/cat). Thoughts?

And even if it doesn't, everyone should watch it anyway...if for no other reason than a naked Monica Bellucci. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't very impressed with BotW. Also, wasn't the beast an actual thing in the movie, rather than a superstition? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If you watched the film until the end, yes. Personally I recommend quitting when he turns in the fake stuffed construct. And yeah, I'd say it's a decent idea to include it here or give it its own article.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)