Do you think crytozoology is a legitimate science/ worthwhile effort?

Question

I think that looking for hypothetical creatures is a worthwhile endeavor.

Answer 1

I think it is worthwhile and strongly believe some stories of bigfoot are almost certainly true, but I have spent decades investigating the subject. Other possible creatures that should be studied or investigated include the Yeti, and the Orang Pendek which is Indonesian for little man and possibly the living representative of Homo floresiensis, the so called Hobbit. Also the Mapinquari, the land sloth in South America that lived to at least near recent times and still has modern reported sightings, and then there are known animals thought extinct such as tasmanian tiger, ivory billed woodpecker etc... I think those who think that we have been everywhere in the world and have discovered everything are mistaken. Some of the most interesting things are left to be discovered. Scientists who think they have learned everything cease to be scientists and become simply reciters of orthodoxy

Answer 2

Cryptozoology is the domain of crackpots. It rates up there with ghost hunters, UFO-ologists and people who believe in leprechauns.

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 3

Where it could be of use was if you were re-establishing the distribution of endangered or possibly extinct species that hadn't been seen for a number of years or were new to science. For example, Gilbert's Potoroo and the Noisy Scrub Bird were re-discovered in the SW of Western Australia in the 60's and 80's respectively. It would be preferable to use your time gathering useful information for endangered species than waisting time on a myth.....scientific endeavour will always win out over pseudo-science as it has more value (ecological and intrinsic).

Answer 4

Yes, the feild of Cryptozoology isn't as pseudoscientific as its critics claim.

The Kraken (a.k.a. Giant Squid) was thought only to be a myth, this is now know to be wrong. Other animals have been discovered by "Cryptozoologist". Read the wiki link below.

It is most certainly a worthwhile field.

Answer 5

Not if you intend to make a living at it. Could be an interesting hobby or full time occupation if you are independently wealthy.

Lots of naysayers, but remember they thought giraffes were a myth until one was imported to France. And Gorillas were roundly condemned as impossible and just a myth until European explorers discovered them. Who knows you could be the one to prove Big Foot is real! Then again if you like to eat on a regular basis...

Answer 6

I think it legitimate science it might help piece together evolution. And help us find the missing between are ancestor and present day man.
It might also explain mysterious creatures like mermaids, dragons and unicorn. If such creature exist.

Answer 7

Not unless you consider astronomy a bad idea. Cryptozoology studies terrestrial while astrology studies extraterrestrial. neither know what's out there but have theories that there might be something due to clues found.

They are both researching the question "what's out there?"

Answer 8

Yeah, there are alot of animals thought to be extinct,but are now found out to live.Like that fish (starts with a "C") and the giant Squids.

Answer 9

It is not clear where one should look. A previously unknown category of life has been found in caves; we don't know much about it yet.

Answer 10

I really don't see how this could be of any use.