Comments on: “Scientific cryptozoology” now that’s rich

By: Ian

Ian — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:53:03 +0000

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?

]]>

By: Jonathan Cid

Jonathan Cid — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:11:23 +0000

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.

]]>

By: Ian

Ian — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:59:31 +0000

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 ~~mythical~~ previously 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).

]]>

By: Jonathan Cid

Jonathan Cid — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:45:51 +0000

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.

]]>