Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and subculture that searches for and studies unknown, legendary, or extinct animals whose present existence is disputed or unsubstantiated, particularly those popular in folklore, such as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Yeti, the chupacabra, the Jersey Devil, or the Mokele-mbembe. Cryptozoologists refer to these entities as cryptids, a term coined by the subculture. Because it does not follow the scientific method, cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by mainstream science: it is neither a branch of zoology nor of folklore studies.
Cryptozoology is the study of unknown/legendary creatures that may be real.
following research and investigation, sometimes those creatures turn out to be real.
calling cryptozoology a pseudoscience is like calling chemistry a pseudoscience because you haven’t figured out every chemical reaction yet.
Feel free to point to a single species discovered by a cryptozoologist.
Zoologists discover and document unknown animals every day. That’s the real science involved in known or unknown creatures. That’s the equivalent to chemistry in your atrocious analogy.
Cryptozoology is more akin to Alchemy. It’s people who fundamentally disagree with basic scientific principles, starting from a conclusion and trying to force whatever paltry evidence they can find into a preexisting mold while ignoring all evidence contrary to their beliefs. There’s a reason Cryptozoology is tied so closely to young earth creationism.
posted this after the weekly challenge on !imageai@sh.itjust.works ☞ covert cryptids
wanted to read a little about cryptids before starting to work on an image
“Feel free to point to a single species discovered by a cryptozoologist.”
according to your take, literally every animal ever discovered was discovered by a cryptozoologist, because something is impossible until it is already known.
“It’s people who fundamentally disagree with basic scientific principles.”
except the ones who investigated and discovered legendary animals that turned out to be real by gathering information, theorizing the existence of an animal, figuring out where the information pointed them, doing field research, and finding those animals.
“starting from a conclusion and trying to force whatever paltry evidence they can find into a preexisting mold while ignoring all evidence contrary to their beliefs.”
like the conclusion most people had that there are no way gorillas can be real because there was no evidence for them until a guy went to the jungle, found a skull, and suddenly gorillas were “real”.
The scientific process works in cryptozoology, resulting in objective successes and plenty of failures, like other sciences.
You are failing the very basics of reading comprehension here.
“according to your take, literally every animal ever discovered was discovered by a cryptozoologist, because something is impossible until it is already known.”
This is so much nonsense I can’t even figure out what the hell you’re talking about. Are you just a word salad AI bot? As I’ve said repeatedly, real zoologists discover and document new species every day. Nowhere have I suggested anything is impossible.
“except the ones who investigated and discovered legendary animals that turned out to be real by gathering information, theorizing the existence of an animal, figuring out where the information pointed them, doing field research, and finding those animals.”
Again, every single one of those discoved by not a cryptozoologist because the concept wasn’t invented until 1950. You’re completely dismissing the work of naturalists, biologists, and the occasional trophy hunter, and instead crediting a concept that wouldn’t exist for half a century.
“like the conclusion most people had that there are no way gorillas can be real because there was no evidence for them until a guy went to the jungle, found a skull, and suddenly gorillas were “real”.”
Again, that’s the work of a naturalist.
I’m not gonna keep banging my head against this wall. I assumed you were misguided but interested in the subject, but now it’s clear you have some emotional attachment to the ‘romantic’ idea of cryptozoology and you aren’t interested in reality. If you do decide to actually learn something, I suggest you start with the Wikipedia article that started this conversation.
“You are failing the very basics of reading comprehension here.”
this doesn’t make any sense with respect to my comments. what do you mean?
oh, here’s why:
“I can’t even figure out what the hell you’re talking about.”
yeah, you being confused doesn’t mean other people are confused.
You are confused
“As I’ve said repeatedly, real zoologists discover and document new species.”
oh, like cryptozoologists have.
got it.
Now you’re taking up the mantle of my argument.
"You’re completely dismissing the work of naturalists, biologists, and the occasional trophy hunter, and instead crediting a concept that wouldn’t exist for half a century. "
by agreeing with your point that zoologists and cryptozoologists discover animals?
The development of a concise term for someone studying mythical animals doesn’t mean nobody studied and discovered mythical animals before then because they found evidence of their existence.
lasers were invented the '60s, they didn’t get named lasers until the '70s.
didn’t mean lasers weren’t real until they came up with a good name.
at best, you’re arguing that all cryptozoologists are legitimate zoologists since they discover new animals.
“I’m not gonna keep banging my head against this wall.”
If that’s what you’ve been doing, your goofy mental gymnastics so far make much more sense in context.