Cryptozoology

Dave! wrote: »

What's the difference between zoology and cryptozoology? I would have thought that lower standards of evidence would be one distinguishing feature? Do cryptozoologists look for new species in different areas to 'common or garden' zoologists?

Right apologies for the delay, I like to put more thought into my posts involving things like this. Your quite right dave the lower standard of evidence is indeed the hallmark of cryptozoology. There are areas of cryptozoology that are exceptions and have a lot of evidence while some areas wouldnt to say the least. Anyone who can call themselves a cryptozoologist but there are several high profile (at least in science circles) scientists that I would respect more.

Were cryptozoology finds its merit is taking up the slack that mainstream zoology creates in not investigating possible new species and it has done many times. Zoology often fails to investigate eye witness accounts of uncatelouged species, eye witness reports are extremely unreliable but once a certain amount of trace evidence is recorded these potential new species should be investigated and not dismissed out of hand. I would rather cryptozoology didnt exist and zoology took potential species more seriously. the worst that can happen is the purported creature is proven as hoax/misidentification/real.

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041025/full/news041025-2.html

Only recently have the more academic cryptozoologists been taken seriously following the discovery of several creatures once thought to be mythical. The above article is from the prodigious nature magazine.

maccored wrote: »

http://tapsfamilyradio.radiocrackle.com/index.php?id=19 - nice interview with cryptozoologist Loren Coleman. Interestingly, he admits he doesn't actually 'believe' in cryptozoology - his thoughts are that people who too readily believe are just as dangerous as closed minded cynics (he's right too).

yes both are indeed dangerous, thanks for the link the only problem i have is that i wouldnt consider undiscovered animals paranormal which the radio station seems to maintain

maccored wrote: »

i'd agree - though if they are undiscovered then there's always a paranormal possibility. The radio station wouldnt say that btw (its my station) - but the show hosts might

very good show man, good interview. Whats your personally view on cryptozoology

GodlessM wrote: »

Thing is, cryptozoology covers all unknown species so doesn't deviate from science per se (the main reason skeptics are so about say ghosts).

yes I agree man anything that goes against the laws in physics in cryptozoology i disagree with.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1157965/Yeti-evidence-convincing-says-wildlife-expert-Sir-David-Attenborough.html

David attenborough is now a cryptozoologist aparantly, this is an example of a scientist expressing interest like this and advocationg the evidence. Its certainly not soley a money making scheme.

Dave! wrote: »

I'm not gonna get into another big debate on Bigfoot, but :

eddy, have the footprints in the Himalayas been verified as 'legit' by Meldrum's top secret hoax-detection algorithm, or do we just have the photo/s to go by? Do you not think it's possible that it was also a hoax/joke/prank? I wouldn't suggest that someone would climb to 19k feet in order to do it -- that would be one determined hoaxer -- but perhaps a climber was up there and decided to leave a mark, have a laugh, stir some sh*t. Do you suppose that's possible?

And also, is it your contention in relation to bigfoot that it lives in the Himalayas and other snowy mountainous regions in Asia? Or does it live in various locations in North America? Or both? Are they the same creature/species, or different (but maybe related) ones? Would it have evolved in each location independently, or moved from one to the other?

dave as much as i enjoyed ( i did genuinly enjoy it btw) the bf debate I dont think i have the energy for another in depth bf debate .

but saying that melddrum dismissed a lot of the yeti tracks as melted snow tracks from a known animal. the most famous track he declared is most likely bear. There is very little eye witness reports for the yeti from the western people. I dont give much creedence to the the case presented for the yeti but I dont discount it out of hand either.

That being said it would be unlikely someone would go to such a remote altitude sickness area to commit a hoax but as meldrum stated all the "yeti" tracks are different its more likely melted tracks becoming bigger in the sun. Meldrum is not a big prponent of the yeti and neither am i. Its ichnotaxonomy meldrum in part uses to eliminate hoaxing to the highest possible degree.

Every track should have a simular morphology and degree of animation evident eg flexed toes one track the next track extendend toes. the track should be indicative of a hominid track and the ankle should be set far enough forward to match the depth of such a track (to provide leverage sufficient enough to move coresponding weight).

anyway to reply to your point meldrum dismissed the yeti tracks as inconclusive im disapointed with david attenborough for saying the evidence is compelling.

the few eywitness acounts say the yeti is more gorilla like and drops to its knuckles to walk

Dave! wrote: »

Alright I took you up incorrectly then -- I thought you were putting the yeti tracks forward as being legitimate, using David Attenborough's endorsement as support for this.

no i should have stated my intentions i was highlighting the fact that cryptozoology is more than just a money making exercise. to me it is simply a consideration or weighing up of evidence (or lack off) in a paticular case. im saying it has its place as a sub discipline of zoology.

I never claimed it was a secret and yes other zoologists have published books, so what? Just because other people publish books on legitimate subjects and make money from it is doesn’t invalidate my point.

em zoology is a legitimate subject, the whole point of my thread on cryptozoology is that it has a place in zoology. There is nothing illegitamite about trying to come to a logoical explanation for unstubstabstiated creatures purported to exist.

Also in my original post I said that it was the primary purpose of cryptozoology to sell books etc, not the only purpose. It is most likely that the doctor believes what he is claiming and thinks he is making a valuable contribution to zoological knowledge, that doesn’t make it so.

So let me get this straight the primary purpose of people labeled cryptozoologists ( a lot prefer to be called zoologists a the rightfully say zoology involves the search for new animals) who advocated the gorilla, giant squid, okapi, komodo dragon ect ect prior discovery were just in it for the money. Not a chance I accept its the primary purpose.

Probably true though you are making an assumption there, also the fact a person funnels money back into more research doesn’t prove the validity of the research regardless of what they are researching.

No it doesnt but as i said before zoology and cryptozoology is a legitimate research. Which has previously turned up the goods. For arguement sake lets say there was an animal sighted every now and again called the south american sneezing monkey would you as you are doing now dismiss it and anyone who researchs it out of hand or would you think that it would be a worthy pursuit to try and validate the animals existence or fraudulence?

I believed the word you are looking for is unsubstantiated, solid evidence is not there, this does not rule out the possibility of bigfoot’s exsistance but it remains outside of science.

Yes well i said less substantiated. Just so you know most pursuits in zoology and any discipline were you have to actually go out and find specimens start of unsubstantiated. Prior to the discovery of the bonobo say was the thesis put forward to explain the sighting that a new animal may be found in the jungle and the subsequent search for it bad science? The existence of a new animal in no way remains outside the realms of science, not a chance.

Outside the realm of science has been used for ghosts mediums ect and yet you apply it to a scientist using known scientific techniques such as ichnotaxonomy, funtional morphology and statistical analysis. Even if you dont agree with the conclusions saying his aproach is bad science is misguided at best and offending a lot of scientists in various disciplines.

Again, I am not claiming that people in other areas are not making money from books etc, this does not invalidate my point. I’m quite alright for links by the way, though thank you or the kind offer.

Your point is the primary purpose of cryptozoology is selling books, people labeled as cryptozoologists have wrote books and discovered new animals. Which ist the most important to them do you think selling the books or substanstiating their contents?

Again, I said Primary not only, also the fact some periodicals are free doesn’t validate their contents.

Who said it did, I take every science paper on a case by case basis.

So? Just because he used to publish good work on another subject doesn’t mean his recent work is any good. Other people from his earlier fields of studies have pointed out marked differences in the level of vigour with which he approaches his current subject of choice. See the link here:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bigfoot-anatomy

No it doesnt but it shows he is a good scientist who applies scientific rigour to his work. You established you dont agree with the meldrums conclusions but you havent tackled the established scietific methods he uses. You told me your not impressed with name dropping yet you expect me to change my view based on frankly less highly regarded people inthe world of science. Look at the inside cover of meldrums book, many people have something like the following "This is the most objective and scietific analysis to date" david begun. Recognise the name? He apears in the article you posted and is one of the biggest skeptics of sasquatch. Not even the skeptics maintain that his methods are "bad science". He puts together a much needed scientific analysis of this creature explains away yeti tracks and yet because you disagree with his conclusions its bad science?

No, all of the things you just mentioned are accepted fields of science which exercise strict peer review processes and are based on verifiable evidence (be it physical or theoretical in nature) as opposed to a collection of easily fakeable plaster casts and a blurry reel of film from the 1960’s of a person in a monkey suit. I actually feel bad that such a formerly reputable figure has been fooled by this guff.

Wow, strict peer review? meldrums paper was revied by five academic peers as oppossed to the usual three. He was initially a skeptic looked at the evidence and was convinced by it he was not fooled.
Your statement would be true if he didnt base his observations on science. Read his book before you pass judgement on it and look at the scientists who endorsed it you'll be surprised by some of the names there.

Yes his observations are based on science, bad science. The names don’t impress me, you are making an argument from authority and as such is of no value. Name dropping in a book doesn’t mean a great deal.

But putting up a link to his critics is supposed to impress me?

Pardon me for being honest and polite, will try to avoid it in the future. I did read the article and it is full of fluff, he comes to no valid conclusion.
His final question in the article is that if scientists accept the existence of a giant ape based on fossil evidence why is serious consideration of the footprint evidence for bigfoot slow in coming?
Answer? The evidence provided has not stood up to the scrutiny of other scientists.

Could you actually put up a arguement against the arguement he uses to scientifically label the tracks? Look up daris schwibndler and how meldrums work convinvced him that " an upright descendent of gigantopiticus blacki is walking around america of that im sure". He wrote the grays anatomy of apes not only has it stood up to scrutiniy but has convinced people of sasquatch's existence.