Nosfer said:

Sure, I'll admit a mistake on the Patterson video.  I can do that. I had the confession attributed to the wrong person.  I do have some issues with the video, itself, such as the feet, but none that would be conclusive one way or the other.  There are a few other hoaxes that could be substituted in it's place. 

I wasn't calling you out.  I really wanted to know.  I thought you had seen one of the kabillion shows and one of them had proved something that I hadn't seen.

Now, as long as you're on about unanswered things:

Alright…getting a bit weird.  After all…I DID have to ask about the Bigfoot thing three times in the same thread.  I didn't know why you weren't answering.  Again…I wasn't calling you out.

Now, as long as you're on about unanswered things:

How about that still-forthcoming explanation of the Russian Flying Girl which you declared to be fake?

And…there we go.  You're angry because you thought I was calling you out, you admitted to being wrong (the horror…as if that mattered…) and you fire back with…this?  Really?  It has nothing to do with this thread or our discussion.   Um…ok.   I wrote that post, it's HUGE, I hit the wrong tab and *poof*.  I tried again the next day, my connection was wonky and *poof* again.  I got angry, used very colorful profanity, and put my notes away for another day.  And then…I just forgot about it.  No mystery, hidden agenda, or conspiracy.  So thank you so very much for reminding me.  I'll dig out the notes, wherever they are, and write it again once I have time.  I can't wait really…I have this sneaking suspicion that you aren't going to agree with my analysis.  The horror…

And how about why will you not give a definition of a Cryptozoologist, thus forcing me to rely on a literal definition which really is no different than the one used by the "real world" And, then when I do, take me to task for it?

YES!  YES!  YES!  FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND EVERYTHING THAT IS HOLY…YES!  Cryptozoology is the study of "hidden animals."  You gave four definitions of it in the second post.  What do you need from me?  I NEVER said that the definition was wrong.  That's your hang-up, not mine.  I'm not arguing the definition.  I never was.  I'm still not. 

The four-sentence history lessons was because, as a chemist, you seem to have forgotten that it is the person doing the work that determines whether or not it is a scientific endeavor. You've explained no views except to say that it's all "…fantasy, fakery, and hog-wash"

And you seem to have forgotten that cryptozoology is essentially based upon stories, anecdotal evidence and alleged sightings.  Your scientific endeavor is flawed from the very start (no need to reinvent the wheel).  You're big on definitions.  Define pseudoscience (just so you can brush up) and then explain to the young boys and girls at home why cryptozoology (whatever definition that you choose…) isn't considered pseudoscience.  Wait…what's that?  It is?  Weird.  So…what exactly is your argument again? 

And just for the record…by your gold standard definition of definitions…is cryptozoology paranormal?  If so…how in the world are you making a case that it's a real science comparable to the likes of entomology?  Please state actual examples.  AND…why then is numerology not apart of mathematics and rumpology apart of anatomy (second time asking on that one) but cryptozoology should be apart of zoology?

And lastly…after 7 posts I've "explained no views?"  Really?  If you're going to swing at me…at least swing for the fences.  What's next?  My shoes don't match my belt and my dog looks funny?    

PS  I'll play nice if you will.  Your choice.  I'm good either way…

Nosfer said:

Yup, you had to ask three times on Bigfoot.  I could tell you were fixated with that one small portion of this and I wanted to see why.  And it didn't seem to have to do as much with the possibility of your having missed some show somewhere, either.

Yes…you wanted to see why.  Right.  People believe that.  They do.   

And speaking of that, thanks for answering any of my questions.  I try to answer yours which take me all over the place, (like into strawman fallacies) but that's fine.  You don't want to return the same courtesy because the answers hurt your arguments…then cool.  You don't want to answer if cryptozoology is a pseudoscience.  You don't want to compare things like numerology and rumpology to cryptozoology (third time asking) because it hurts your "oh…wait and it could become a real science" theory.  If it doesn't fit nicely into your argument, you ignore it.  Nice.  A fine lesson  to be taught to all. 

After all these twisting and turning posts you come back and say it's the study of hidden animals. Really? After all that? Here I was hoping you had some new and earth-shattering definition up your sleeve so that we could get on with the discussion. Disappointing.

At this point, there isn't a definition that you would accept from me, so why not go old school because it doesn't really matter and it was funny.  If you actual read anything that I posted (yeah…it's gotten that bad), your glorious definitions of cryptozoology, cryptozoologists, and cryptids…do not matter.  Post #21 I said:

"You asked for my definition of cryptozoology or a cryptozoologist. It's quite simple and it's the complete problem…it's anything that you really want it to be. Want it just about animals? Cool. Want to throw in inter-dimensional aspects? Fine. What about magic? Sounds great. What about anything and everything read about in a book or seen in a movie or on TV? Um…yeah…those ideas have to come from somewhere. You have NO problem with this? THIS is what you are comparing to entomology? Really? Walk up to an entomologist and see how far that gets you with him….and bring an ice pack."

But…you didn't accept that.  No, no, no, no….the definition means this so it MUST be this.  Define this or that.  There is no need.  For some reason you can't accept that anyone can wake up one day and call themselves a cryptozoologist.  Anyone can make up anything they wish about any "cryptid" and it becomes apart of that cryptids lore and/or actual description.  THIS is your new science?  Drone on about how it's "the person."  You still haven't stated any examples of "people doing things properly."  And you still haven't mentioned ANYTHING that they have ever produced. 

And I'm not some bumpkin off the street.  Like that link I gave you, my fascination with "monsters" parallels Brian Dunning's.  I've been following "cryptozoology" for years.  I love bad movies and I love cryptozoology for the same reasons.  The entire thing is based upon terrilble premises, the follow-through's are pathetic, and overall it's a laughable mess.   "Monster A Go-Go" didn't win any oscars and cryptozoology (no matter how it's defined *shudders*) isn't close to being apart of real science.

You said it is "based upon stories, anecdotal evidence and alleged sightings". The real-life scientific fields might call those "hypotheses" which are then tested. Let the competent ones in the field do their work and the field will evolve, as the others have.

Physics.  Chemistry.  Biology.  Cryptozoology.  Yes…I see it now.  Wow…that, my friend is shocking.  So…and I know how you HATE answering my questions but…you've never answered your own threads question: Cryptozoology…is it paranormal?  And mine: Cryptozoology…it it pseudoscience?

Nosfer said:

Should Bottriell not have gone looking for the King Cheetah?

Not in the least.  Of course, let's not just leave it at that shall we?  Reginald Innes Pocock, a british zoologist, first discovered it and claimed in was a new species in 1927.  Later, it was discovered (probably by other zoologists) that it was just a simple yet rare and very cool mutation. In 1975 the Bottriell's snapped some pictures.  Great.  Not exactly ground-breaking, nobel-winning material.  They didn't discover anything new.  Tell me this wasn't your example of cryptozoolgical evidence.  And please tell me that you weren't attributing the King Cheetah to the Bottriells.  I think Mr Pocock's life work (just a small glimpse and another one) earned him some respect.  He deserves some mention…

I'll address your other points later tonight.

Nosfer said:

It is Cooper, to whom Pocock, himself, says the credit of the discovery belongs (via the hide).  It was then seen 5 times in the wild since 1927 before finally being photographed by the Bottriells which, while not "ground-breaking" was certainly of merit.

Well, again…it wasn't a new species.  Like I said before, it's simply a rare yet very cool mutation of a known species.  A live specimen with that mutation hadn't been photographed before.  Like I said…great.  I'll give them some points.  It was cool.  Yet…not exactly some sort of cause for celebration.  I'd rank it slightly above finding a four-leaf clover amongst the typical three-leaved clover (1 out of 10,000) and only because cheetahs are awesome.  I mean who doesn't love cheetahs?

I've known about the King Cheetah for quite some time.  Here's a nice video of one for those who haven't seen one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..ijs7m6MXfc

If the King Cheetah were a new species and Pocock and Cooper weren't involved, I'd score one for cryptozoology.  But…that just isn't the case.  And thanks for mentioning Cooper.  I couldn't remember his name and was going to revise my post to include him once I dug around for it.  But speaking of that…I did look at two random sites dealing with cryptozoology (here and here).  Notice anything missing from them?  Like the names of Pocock and Cooper?  Weird, right?  It's like the Bottriells are getting the entire credit for the "discovery."  And so goes cryptozoology…

Just as individuals in a field regarded as pseudoscience can behave scientifically, the converse is also true. Frauds and charlatans exist claiming to belong to scientific fields as well as to pseudoscientific fields. But for some reason you do not scorn the "established" fields because of them, just the individuals? Or so I assume. I agree with doing that, by the way, but why not afford the same practice to a pseudoscience? Give credit to those trying to do things right (even if a minority) and call-out the ones who do not.

I understand what you're saying here.  Since I know the field of chemistry fairly well, let us use that as our example of an "established" field.  Are there frauds and charlatans in the field of chemistry?  Yes.  Do we (you, me, whomever…) scorn chemistry when some idiot does something weird?  No.  The reason?  The body of work speaks for itself.  As you said, chemistry is established.  Scientific method is grafted into our DNA.  We bleed procedures.  Our peer review is the stuff of nightmares.  We have to account for every single thing that we do.  At all times.  Every time.  No exceptions.  Ever.  One does not wake up one morning, declare that he is a chemist and creates new chemical compounds.

On the other hand…one can wake up one morning, declare that he is a cryptozoologist and can quite easily start adding to existing cryptids or create entire new ones.  No degrees needed (like who wants to take "The Dynamics of Fluids IV"…I still have nightmares over that class…).  No specific training.  No procedures to follow.  No system of checks and balances.  Essentially…it's the Wild West.  Probably explains the snazzy hats…

So, my friend, you can see…they are not equals, therefore, they are not treated equally.  You say to "give credit to those trying to do things right."  So…in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king?  Who wears the crown?  Who is doing the "right" things and how do we distinguish that from the gigantic pile of…stuff…this is cryptozoology?  And I'm not saying that flippantly.  I genuinely wouldn't know where to begin and I've been looking at this…stuff…for nearly three decades.

Anybody ever peak your interest?  I want to say Jeff Meldrum.  Seems smart and capable.  I like some of the stuff that he does and then…he says something and I begin to shy away a bit.  Like when he starts to hypothesize that there are 500-750 Bigfoot running around.  My guess is 23,971,605.  It's like a jar of mythical jellybeans.  Can he be right?  *shrugs*  Stop kicking out imaginary numbers and show me just one of the 750 bodies.  Or 23,971,605 bodies (I feel lucky!).

There's other things that still need to be addressed.  Just wanted to start there, no need to get everything into a single post.  And…it's getting late…

PS And not a snarky or aggressive word in the entire post.  Who knew it could be done?  :P 

Post edited 2:37 am – May 14, 2011 by Revenant

Nosfer said:

Degrees mean only as much as the paper they are printed on.  What the person has learned, retained, and applied (either via academics or practical experience) is what matters. 

 

---

Man…there's an absolutely great example of this…and I can't remember the specifics to save my life.  I saw a bit on TV about a guy, no formal college (and…I'm questioning high school but I could be wrong on that) and the guy has discovered, classified, and named a bunch of….something.    The topic didn't interest me so I didn't commit it to memory.  Maybe flowers…butterflies…small insects, something along those lines.  I just remember that the guy was discovering new things in his spare time and how cool that was to see.  And I'm not talking two or three either.  I think he had discovered over thirty…whatever it was.   (20 Rev points for whoever can figure out who that guy is…)

Anyway…I did notice something…

Science vs Pseudoscience. I still keep coming back to the individual. A biologist goes out and accidentally finds something. What "science" was applied here? And recall that many discoveries of new species are just that, accident

This struck me.  "A biologist goes out…"  So…you are envisioning all, or many, cryptozoologists going out on expeditions?  Actually leaving the couch, or library (and now the PC…so back on the couch), and braving the elements?  Hmmm…I think this is one of our hang-ups.  I didn't realize that you were viewing them like that.  From reading many books and checking out umpteen websites…I'm not convinced that that is the case.  I mean sure, some do.  Perhaps a few times a year.  But it seems to me that much of the information is just sort of regurgitated forward and perhaps then embellished a bit.  This is why I linked that thread showing how the Mayan/UFO stone panel story was "morphing" or being re-worded after only a couple of days.  I think that this is why we can't get our arguments to balance out and mesh.  We're arguing different aspects.  You're envisioning the cryptozoologist as a weekend scientist-wanna-be (or maybe actual scientist in a different field) and doing their own work…maybe adhereing to scientific methodology, maybe not.  I'm saying that a cryptozoologist isn't even close to that, and most are just "borrowing" other peoples work (either scientific discovery or crazy crypto story) and making it their own (and I've got about 400 metric tons of craziness to back me up on that).  Would you agree that that is kind of where were at?

After all of this, I'm really just trying to understand your point.  So…I've come up with this:

Why must cryptozoology become a science?  Why can't it just stay the half-crazy, crypto-riffic mess that it is?  Why must it have a seat at the grown-up table?  I just don't understand why you believe that there must be a progression towards that.