Cryptozoology??

[Peregrin Toker]

Can cryptozoology be considered pseudoscience?? I come up with this topic because I am very interested in cryptozoology, but I absolutely despise pseudoscience.

Your opinions, please.

[Colonel Olrik]

Is that the study of mythical animals, like the big foot? if yes, I's certainly not science. Maybe a hobby

[Tsyroc]

Is that the study of mythical animals, like the big foot? if yes, I's certainly not science. Maybe a hobby

Yep, that's basically what it is. Basically if the person involved is looking for something that most scientist think doesn't exist or is just mythical it probably falls under Cryptozoology.

There's probalby a fine line of overlap though since some of the animals that used to sort of fit into that catagory have been found (Okapi, Celocanth, Giant Squid) but most of the time the term is used for really wacked stuff. Bigfoot, Yeti, Lock Ness Monster, dinosaurs in the Congo, Chupacabre etc....

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I think it's generally considered pseudoscience, but it seems fairly close to boarderland science (at least when it's done by the sane ones.)

[Majin Gojira]

Yeah, it's really iffy. their are some good uses to it...and some overzealous uses of it. if it's done seriously, it's ok. but it often is not.

I'm reminded of a scene from Invader Zim.

(After disproving the existance of Chickenfoot)
Dib: Ya see, paranormal studies isn't just a bunch of crazy's believing in everything they hear. We also disprove the hoaxes!

Paranormal Investigator 1: So...I Guess this means BIGFOOT is a HOAX TOO!

Paranormal Investigator 2: And UFO's!

Paranromal Investigator 1: and Hobos!

Dib: Wait! Those are real, well except the hobos...no, wait...those are real...um... WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!??

Paranormal Reporter: And So Chickenfoot has been shown to be a hoax, calling into question all other "monster" sightings.

Dib: That didn't turn out quite like I expected...

[Master of Ossus]

It depends on the cryptozoologist. There are, undoubtedly, undiscovered animals in the world today, and cryptozoologists task themselves with searching for them, evidence of them, and proof of their existence. AFter discovering new species, good cryptozoologists then attempt to document the animal's behavior and physiology. This is a completely valid science. However, when cryptozoologists begin looking for mythical animals in well charted areas, for instance the Loch Ness Monster, then they cross the line between science and pseudoscience. When they begin looking for such animals, in spite of the complete lack of evidence for their existence (and, really, the common sense reasons that they cannot exist), then they have stopped practicing the scientific method. Whenever a person masquerading as a researcher does that, he should lose his credibility and be ostracized by the scientific community.

[Wicked Pilot]

They can search all they want and it's Ok with me. They might actually find what they're looking for. However, the second they start touting some grainy, out of focus, black and white photo as absolute proof of some half lizard, half furry think monster that does Elvis impersenations living behind Jethro and Bubba's garage, I get mad.

By the way, did I mention that I have an invisible fire breathing dragon in my garage?

[ArmorPierce]

As long as you take in all the evidence objectively unlike many cryotzooloists that takes the evidence in very subjectively. But then again, taking the evidence in objectively will disprove most of these animals to be absurd.

[NecronLord]

Theres a fair amount of evidence for the squid...

[Peregrin Toker]

It depends on the cryptozoologist. There are, undoubtedly, undiscovered animals in the world today, and cryptozoologists task themselves with searching for them, evidence of them, and proof of their existence. AFter discovering new species, good cryptozoologists then attempt to document the animal's behavior and physiology. This is a completely valid science.

Hmm....... you might have a good point. Some cryptozoologists undoubtedly take their work very seriously.

Others, however, have turned out to be hoaxers, or are... well, not much better than hoaxers.

[Master of Ossus]

Theres a fair amount of evidence for the squid...

If you mean the Giant Squid, yes, it exists. Despite the fact that it has never been found in the wild alive, it does exist. We have discovered its remains. The existence of a Giant Octopus (as in, 100 feet) is controversial. There is some evidence that one specimen was found, but the lack of subsequent discoveries and evidence remaining from the old one also indicate that it may not exist, or that the one specimen was an anomaly.

[Peregrin Toker]

The existence of a Giant Octopus (as in, 100 feet) is controversial. There is some evidence that one specimen was found, but the lack of subsequent discoveries and evidence remaining from the old one also indicate that it may not exist, or that the one specimen was an anomaly.

Actually, this site lists several giant octopus carcasses found......

However, they are few and far between, so they might be anomalies....

[Master of Ossus]

The existence of a Giant Octopus (as in, 100 feet) is controversial. There is some evidence that one specimen was found, but the lack of subsequent discoveries and evidence remaining from the old one also indicate that it may not exist, or that the one specimen was an anomaly.

Actually, this site lists several giant octopus carcasses found......

However, they are few and far between, so they might be anomalies....

Interesting. I had only heard of the one at Saint Augustine. Several specimens are not usually anomalies.

[Peregrin Toker]

Interesting. I had only heard of the one at Saint Augustine. Several specimens are not usually anomalies.

There can be more than just one anomaly, just as there have been more than one human whose height exceeded 2,5 metres... (roughly 8 feet)

[weemadando]

I know that one of the octopus species found off the pacific coast of Canada can measure well over 2m.

And that while diving down here in Tassie I've seen (and even played) with some that would have been 1.5m long. But 2.9m? I think that its just a big ole bastard. After all, the only part of an octopus that wouldn't decompose rapidly is the beak, and octopi sink when they die. They are also smart enough to escape most traps set by people and as such I'm guessing that we don't really have that great an idea of how big certain species of octopi can get.

[Nick]

People who try to claim the existence of weirdass creatures in well-populated or well-explored territory are cranks, to say the least (Loch Ness Monster and BigFoot being two popular examples).

Seeking out exotic new species in poorly explored, relatively unpopulated territory in order to study and document them is an entirely different matter - and if conducted in a scientific manner, is deserving of the name science.

The ocean's pretty clearly fit the bill as 'poorly explored territory'. Humans have examined decent sized chunks of the ocean floor, but I doubt we've come anywhere near covering all of it. On land, deep rainforest and deep inside cave complexes are probably the best bets.

The science/psuedoscience distinction is more a matter of methodology than one of subject matter - but that methodology will sometimes influence the questions which are seen as worth investigating.