Is Cryptozoology Paranormal.

Skeptic_Desu

Was reading this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7525060.stm.
And gots to thinkin'. Is cryptozoology paranormal?

Personally I don't think it is despite them being grouped together. Mainly because a newly discovered animal isn't something science can't explain unless they breathe fire or shoot lightning or something.

Thoughts?

Nolanger

Depends - Cryptozoology involves investigating supposedly extinct creatures so that would be part of established science.
It also deals with investigating non-classified creatures such as the Yeti which is not taken seriously by most scientists. This area of Cryptozoology could be considered paranomal investigation.

DANNY22XX

it another part of the paranormal ,,ie,,cant be explained,,
you have the investigators,then the psychic investigators,,demonoligist,,Cryptozoologists,,UFO researchers,,angeloligy,,and so on,,
to most it comes under paranormal,,,most people think paranormal is all about ghost,etc,,its not,,:eek:

Skeptic_Desu

DANNY22XX wrote: »

it another part of the paranormal ,,ie,,cant be explained,,
you have the investigators,then the psychic investigators,,demonoligist,,Cryptozoologists,,UFO researchers,,angeloligy,,and so on,,
to most it comes under paranormal,,,most people think paranormal is all about ghost,etc,,its not,,:eek:

How do you mean it can't be explained exactly?
Despite a total lack of evidence for many of the more famous cryptids (like Nessie and Bigfoot) or the less likely ones (like dragons or griffons) many large species have been discovered only recently.
Cryptozoologists would be quick to show examples like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okapi and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
But I wouldn't consider either of these species paranormal or supernatural in any way.

Slow Motion

I have had this debate before, (Winks at 6th) and proposed a bordean times forum (click the flaming slow link in my sig) which I think would be a more fitting place for cryptozoological type stuff than here as I don't think the regulars here would be as interested, IMO!

Skeptic_Desu

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

How do you mean it can't be explained exactly?
Despite a total lack of evidence for many of the more famous cryptids (like Nessie and Bigfoot)

I wouldnt say total lack of evidence. There is no body's but there is alot of evidence. Especially for a north american Ape, from photos video's Hair Samples blood samples , footprints, body prints. First hand account witnesses. Multi_witness sightings.

Lake monster , well i dont know about Loch Ness but there are alot of sightings of other lake monsters or marine animals that havnt been discovered yet.

stevenmu

I don't think there's a good enough definition of what is or is not paranormal to say whether a lot of things belong under it or not.

As a practical matter I think including the likes of big foot and nessie in this forum is fine, at least until such point as firm evidence of their existence is found, at which point I'm sure they will be welcomed on the biology forum.

Mainly because a newly discovered animal isn't something science can't explain unless they breathe fire or shoot lightning or something.

I think the examples given, the Okapi and the Coelacanth, don't really belong in the paranormal, but creatures whose existence is only speculated on do. If nessie for e.g. was captured or conclusively videoed then I think the same would apply.