“Scientific cryptozoology” now that’s rich
Ian | 10 September, 2009 | 13:25The Province is reporting “sightings” of a “creature” in Vancouver Island Lake. Luckily this story doesn’t degrade to full blown lunacy, but it still lacks a credible voice. It’s worth noting that within a week this is the second mythical animal story The Province has published based on fuzzy photos and no real investigation.
However, unlike the sasquatch story, this story comes with quotes from, wait for it, the BC Scientific Cryptozoology Club. No this is no ordinary search for mythical creatures club, they practice 100% bonafide science.
Let it be clearly known that the BCSCC is a scientific body which follows the accepted principles of orthodox zoology in regard to establishing the existence of new species of animals. Our mandate is to ascertain where they fit into the greater picture in the realm of natural history. We do not subscribe in any way, shape or form to any ludicrous paranormal, occultic or supernatural viewpoints when discussing the nature and origins of such animals. The BCSCC is rigidly scientific and does not entertain speculative pseudo-scientific notions about these animals is it is hard enough making a case for them as flesh and blood biological entities without having to deal with quasi-scientific nonsense. [Emphasis added]
I’ll give you a second to stop laughing.
Good yet?
Alright, read it once more, and then we’ll move on.
That last highlighted line nails it. They openly admit it’s damn near impossible to prove these creatures exist, which you think might have them rush to use one of the key axioms of science: Occam’s Razor.
I also wasn’t aware that the “principles of orthodox zoology” include relying solely on anecdotal evidence and fuzzy pictures. But I’m no zoologist so I could be wrong.
But wait, there’s more about them:
Accredited Field Investigators
The BCSCC recognizes a number of individuals as accredited field investigators who may work under the banner of the club and these may be found on our committee page.
Other members may become accredited investigators by showing the necessary competency on fieldwork investigations conducted by the club. The fact that we do carry out fieldwork and encourage members to do so wherever they are in the world, prompts many people to apply to the BCSCC for membership. If you have an interest in being part of a fieldwork investigation please get in touch with us.
That’s right, with enough time and money (for the membership and trips), you too could be an “Accredited Field Investigator in Cryptozoology!” I wonder if you get a giant magnifying glass.
Additionally, if you check out their membership page, you’ll get this nice warning:
The BCSCC reserves the right to decline memberships – at our sole discretion – to anyone not meeting our eligibility requirements or other criteria we may use to determine suitability.
Likely they want to keep their membership “pure” of those who, as mentioned in their About page, think this stuff is the stuff of fairy dust – and actually believe in fairy dust.
It’s nice to see an upper-bound on irrationality at least.
Finally, let’s take note of the financial sponsors they list, just in case you needed to consider where to spend your hard-earned sceptical dollars in British Columbia:
- Ascension Arts
Vancouver, BC, Canada - Myriad Studios
Victoria, BC, Canada - Peachland Water Sports
5899 Beach Avenue, Peachland, BC, V0H 1X7 - Peachland Tourist Information Center
5812 Beach Avenue, Peachland, BC, V0H 1X0
Phone: (250) 767-2455 - UPS Store
Station Square, Burnaby, BC, Canada
Subscribe to posts
Are you suggesting that there can be no cryptozoology (simply the search for animals we’re not sure even exist, but could potentially) based on the scientific method? Are you suggesting that skepticism means not even investigating these things, or taking an interest in investigating them? Because I find that funny. To be a skeptic, does not mean to refuse to even consider a notion, or investigate it thoroughly. You’ve also failed to point out how this is “irrational”. They’re not “relying” on “anecdotal evidence” and “fuzzy pictures”. People think they’ve seen things, they can investigate skeptically. There’s nothing irrational or laughable about that. The very purpose of the process of investigation is to see whether there is/isn’t evidence for something.
Lots of people claim something —> you test it, you look for evidence. Is this unscientific?
“No this is no ordinary search for mythical creatures club, they practice 100% bonafide science.”
You presume they believe in mythical creatures. They’re testing people’s claim, seeing if there’s any solid evidence of them. That’s science.
If you define cryptozoology as just zoology, then it is science. And I agree we can skeptically investigate any and all claims. So has the BCSCC actually found evidence for any of these
mythicalpreviously unknown species, and if so have they published it in any biological journals? Because if not, I don’t think they’re doing anything but wilderness hiking and taking fuzzy pictures (which is not science).Surely testing the validity of these things is science. Simply because they test, and the result is that there’s no evidence for the thing, doesn’t mean that what they’re doing isn’t science. Because someone’s hypothesis (not necessarily even their own) isn’t confirmed, doesn’t mean that what they’re doing is not science.
At some point the science is settled, unless new, credible, evidence surfaces. Do these phantom chasers ever admit that some monsters are just myths?
Let’s use a relevant example: At some point we, as scientists, have to admit that it’s far more likely that the ogopogo monster of Lake Okanogan is more likely to be common sea otters than a previously undiscovered behemoth. Many of the eyewitness reports can be attributed to a collective desire to see Ogie (wouldn’t you want to?) rather than actual testable evidence.
Further, can you explain what “tests” the BCSCC runs to search for their mythical beings?