Will crytpozoology ever be a recognized and respected profession?

Answer 1

Does it really matter who respects it? Being only 15, I am not so sure that my opinion matters, but I try anyway. I don;t know the exact statistic, but in the last 100 years, many new species have been discovered. Albeit, most of them are already well known by the locals, but western science just hadn't picked up on it yet. Lately, it has been thought that a cure for cancer exists, although it may just be growing undisturbed in a jungle somewhere.I definately respect someone who can do this job, especially amongst all the criticism they recieve.

Answer 2

No, because as soon as cryptozoologists actually find any of the critters they are searching for, the animal becomes the providence of zoologists and others who actually study living organisms.

There is no methodology or even a real field of study for cryptozoology. There is no way to study something for which there is no evidence for their existence. It is an interesting hobby for many zoologists and paleontologists, and can be the starting point for interesting zoological expeditions or investigations, but not a recognized branch of science at all.

Many of the more vocal 'fringe' elements of cryptozoology claim that there is some sort of conspiracy amongst 'establishment' zoologists to suppress their findings or cover up the evidence of the existence of various cryptids, but in fact most zoologists I know, and almost every paleontologist has an incredible interest in cryptozoology, and would love nothing better than to discover some previously unknown species.

There isn't a vertebrate paleontologist in the world that wouldn't hop on a plane to Scotland if they actually thought there was credible evidence that plesiosaurs still lived in the lake. Instead, most zoologists and paleonotologists pin their hopes on more likely cryptids, like the Nandi bear, or the monsters of Lake Iliamna in Alaska.

Answer 3

No.

Quite simply, no. Cryptozoology will never be a respected profession because it relies entirely on psuedoscience and mysticism for its existence. Those things don't deserve respect and anyone pratcicing them as a"profession" is a charlatan and no different from a psychic or con man.

If people want to go off amnd look for new animal species they become real zoologists. Zoology is a real science with a real understanding of science, ecology, ethology and so forth. There is no place for CRYPTOzoology as a profession because the real science of zoology deals with undiscovered aniamls more effetivley.

That just leaves cryptozoology with the hokum: bigfoot, mothmen, nessie, bunyips, alien-human hybrids and so forth. These ar not topics that will ever garner any sort of respect from intelligent or dicerning people.

We'd better define our terms first. From the Skeptic's Dictionary:

Cryptozoology is, literally, the study of hidden animals. It is the study of such creatures as the Australian bunyips, Bigfoot, the chupacabra, and the Loch Ness monster. It is not a recognized branch of the science of zoology.

You can get a glimpse into this if you visit the website of Loren Coleman, a self-proclaimed cryptozoologist, giving advice on entering the field:

But I'm sorry to say that there are very few classes ever given in cryptozoology (I taught one in 1990) and no formal cryptozoology degree programs available anywhere. So my advice would be to pick whatever subject you are most passionate about (primates? felids? giant squids? fossil men?) and then match it up with the field of study that matches that subject (anthropology, zoology, linguistics, etc.). Pursue that subject, pick the college that is good in that arena, and you can develop your niche in cryptozoology and not go wrong. (I studied anthropology/zoology, and then moved on to more psychological graduate studies to understand the human factor.)

That pretty much sums it up. These folks do not get grants specifically to look for mythical beasts. The scientific grant review process is arduous and extremely critical, and any legitimate scientist would immediately reject searches for yetis, etc., as total nonsense. However, if you write a research proposal saying something like, "The Mgwango tribe of equatorial Africa believes that a large, brontosaurus-like beast called mokele-mbembe lives in their forest, and I wish to go to Africa to investigate this tribe," you might actually get a grant for it--not because the grantors believe you're going to discover a brontosaurus, but because you're promising to find out why the Mgwango tribe believes there's such a beast in their forest, which is an interesting bit of anthropology. If that qualifies as "goofy," then the entire anthropological profession would qualify, I suppose.

In other words, the anthropological side of this research is legitimate. But once someone starts calling themselves a cryptozoologist instead of an anthropologist, they've departed the realm of science. Don't get me wrong. Only a fraction of the world's species have been described in the scientific literature, and new critters are being discovered all the time, mostly tiny ones--bugs and worms and such. Finding more is a serious scientific project. But to go after legendary megafauna chiefly because they're legendary, without any real evidence that they exist--I'm sorry, this is the work of crackpots.

Answer 4

Probably not, as there are too many "fringe" elements involved. While there are certainly some good arguments that can be made with respect to some animals that were thought to be extinct or otherwise not exist at all, there are many more that remain cryptic.

Until cryptozoologists are able to apply for, say, National Science Fountation grants in order to track down individual species, it will be difficult to justify full-time positions for cryptozoologists- individuals who publish papers in that field as a practice, rather than a preoccupation, or a distraction in times between working on other paying projects.

It's a fun thing to think about- strange animals that are furtive in their appearances, if they exist at all- but it's not really the sort of thing that yields tangible results very often, and certainly with no financial benefit.

Answer 5

Probably not in the near future. If the mythological creatures like the Loch Ness Monster are actually proven to exist or that they have existed at some point in time then there may be some advances in being recognized and respected. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

Answer 6

I find it extremely unlikely. It's possible but unlikely. It would be like astrobiology there are only a few people who study that much like there are not many cryptozologists. They'll probably never be taken seriously unless some extremely hard evidence appears for multiple cryptozological beasts.

Answer 7

I don't believe so. I just think that if found and properly documented the chupacabra, bigfoot et al will just somehow be included in our present taxonomic system. :)

Answer 8

i think so there always having shows on the history channel about it