Should Cryptozoology Throw Out “Hangers-Ons”?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on October 15th, 2007
Sometimes challenges need to be confronted head-on. I want to address a call from a blogger who says that cryptozoology is a credible discipline needing to “rid itself of the hangers-on” especially visible at other rival cryptozoology sites.
A woman on top of her own self-named “Llewtrah’s Soapbox”, in a blog entitled “Fox With Mange,” has this to say about our favorite subject (cryptozoology, please note, not mange) today, Monday, October 15:
Cryptozoology is the study of “hidden” or “unproven” animals – ones not yet scientifically recognised. The plus side is that new species being discovered, or rather animals long known to native peoples as “good to eat” get classified by sceptical scientists. Unfortunately, too many self-styled cryptozoologists lack the scientific training and the scepticism required for real scientific study. It’s these people who prevent cryptozoology from being taken seriously by the scientific community and being dismissed as yeti-hunting. The problem is, with no need for formal qualifications, anyone unable to identify a creature seems to call him/herself a cryptozoologist.
One of the more laughable forums on the web is at Cryptozoology.Com which appears to be inhabited by kiddies who regard every mange-ridden fox as an out-of-place hyena or a mutant long-tailed bobcat or hitherto unknown species of cat. The contributors confidently identify silhouettes as black pumas (the fact that pumas have never exhibited melanism goes whoosh! over their collective heads) and half-seen large animals as lion-jaguar or puma-leopard hybrids even though they’ve never seen either big cat outside of an I-Spy book. Scientific rigour and scepticism is in short supply on those forums. These identifications are posted by eejits wouldn’t be able to identify a hyena if they fell over one.
In conclusion, after saying a few negative things about British big cat people, she writes:
In the last several years, cryptozoology has gone from being a fringe pseudo-science on a par with paranormal investigators to a respectable discipline of following up reports of animals that have defied identification. Unfortunately, there are too many gullible, self-delusional unscientists bringing the whole study of new species into disrepute. If cryptozoology is be a credible discipline it needs to rid itself of the hangers-on who wouldn’t be able to identify a “panther” (that’s either a puma, leopard or jaguar, depending on which country you live in) if it ambled out of a hedge and they tripped over it.“Llewtrah’s Soapbox”
First of all, at least, Ms. Llewtrah was intelligent enough to not mention Cryptomundo by name, as we make it obvious that open discussions of canids with mange should be straight-forwardly identified as such or mentioned for comedic relief. But we do not put people down for their opinions in this regard. Everyone starts their education somewhere.
I think such broad strokes as are painted here by Ms. Llewtrah about cryptozoology being a credible discipline needing to “rid itself of the hangers-on” misses a big insight into what is taking place within the field today.
Allow me to support the overt manifestations of the developmental stages that occur when a new science is being pushed into popular culture, as is taking place in the 21st century with cryptozoology.
Considering cryptozoology is a relatively new science, having only concretely been formalized with its naming in the 1940s-1950s, not appearing as a word in a book until 1961, why would anyone be surprised that this youthful adventure appears as it does to the world today?
Cryptomundo.com is the most visited and the leading cryptozoology site on the net, and yet there is a purpose and reason for all of the other sites, which I will defend to the death. People do not become cryptozoologists overnight. From my experience, some folks play with the topic, get bored, and move on.
I’ve known several young Bigfooters to be passionate for a few years, until they geographically move, got a job, married, and/or had kids. Is it not better for there to be playgrounds and launching pads for these people on the net, than for them to attempt to do it all in academia. Or even to have several learning outlets?
The highly motivated few, whether they stop by one cryptozoology site or YouTube or here, may some day disappear into their own journey, their individual pursuit of cryptozoology and hominology, via books, schooling, and/or field studies. On the other side, they could reemerge as a fieldworker, scientist, author, or filmmaker who might make far-reaching contributions to cryptozoology, zoology, and natural history studies. Aren’t the critics like Ms. Llewtrah missing this entire process by jumping on one group of individuals, in a certain part of these cryptozoologists-in-training’s development and public revelations?
Yes, we all get tired of realizing that every-Chupacabras-is-really-a-dog end story, or the ultimate fake YouTube video verdict, but those critics who are missing the learning curve here are missing the point.
I would rather have some websites messing around with every-domestic-cat-is-a-puma discussions than to have silent out there. Cryptozoologists-in-training evolve in many forms, and to think that an elitist attitude is the right approach is as wrong-headed as the black and white concepts we are hearing from Ms. Llewtrah.
As opposed to thinking that “too many gullible, self-delusional unscientists [are] bringing the whole study of new species into disrepute,” I tend to experience what is occurring as merely a learning and evolutionary process observable in the broad daylight of the internet. The history of science has not benefited from a sense that one faction should exclude the young Turks, innocent fools, or different opinions, ever.
So while I might empathize with Ms. Llewtrah’s feelings, and perhaps mildly agree with a few of her personal frustrations oozing through her statements, I must disagree with the broader implications of her critique.
Allow cryptozoology to have its growing pains and it will emerge on the other side even stronger than before. Get into elitism, and trouble will be afoot. The big tent works the best in cryptozoology.
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
Eureka! Found the article.
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/anthropology/Faculty/Begun/begunSciAm.pdf
Closed-mindedness at work within. Read, and be enlightened.
(Enlightenment available upon request.)
Sounds like this guy read “springheeledjack’s Guide To Sounding Open on a Topic When You Are As Closed As The Edsel Plant.”
I have enjoyed reading the posts on this topic: Thought provoking and all round good stuff. (I especially liked rhbness’ commonsense comments on “sightings”). Here are some of my thoughts on cryptozoology.
Professional Cryptozoology
Cryptozoology should be a sub-branch of the scientific discipline of zoology. As such, we would expect zoologists to study, research, and field investigate suspected cryptids (suspected because of tracks found, other possible tangible evidences, and well attested sightings). Such studies should be presented in typical scientific fashion, open to criticism and peer review. This implies a two way street: cases for alleged cryptids should be put forth tentatively and not dogmatically by advocates, and the scientific “establishment” should be open to critiquing said cases and not simply ignore them.
Professional cryptozoologists would hold relevant degrees in the life sciences, as well as in psychology and folk lore (given the cultural aspect of some well publicized, alleged cryptids).While some practicing scientists consider themselves cryptozoologists, or are sympathetic to the aims of cryptozoologists, I do not know if cryptozoology is on the threshold of scientific accreditation as a sub-branch of zoology.
Amateur Cryptozoology
Those who criticize cryptozoology on the grounds that there are few, if any, new types of animals to be found today, are clearly wrong. The recent finds in Vietnam prove the contrary. Amateur cryptozoogists are valuable to the field because they are the extra eyes and hands needed to advance various cases, since the scientific establishment often moves slowly with research and grant money (especially concerning non-essential topics such as cryptids.)
Such amateurs I would hope to be well grounded in the relevant sciences, fair and open minded, and concerned most with an objective understanding of the phenomena under question.Amateurs in astronomy and amateur paleontologists have often made discoveries benefiting their more formal scientific brothers and sisters; there is no reason why amateur cryptozoolgists could not be similarly beneficial.
Enchanted Cryptozoology
Here is where cryptozoology runs into opposition and formal rejection. This view does not simply propose the possibility of rare unknown animals, but rather champions doubtlessly a whole world of unknown creatures. And these creatures are not of the mundane variety, a new deer in southeast Asia or a new species of finch in Central America, but rather are highly romantic and extravagant creatures, giant ape-men in the forests of America, prehistoric whales surviving in lakes in Scotland.
In this view, sightings may stand alone as sure “evidence” (as long as the sightings conform to the preconceived; for instance, the Spicer sighting endures while the Chruickshank sighting is forgotten). Enchanted cryptozoology sometimes comes perilously close to a quasi-mysticism, where accepting the Patterson film, for instance, can help you “grow” as a person (or better yet, don’t do any “thinking” at all about the film, just let the image wash over you and awe you in it’s enchantment).
Enchanted cryptozoology has its “monsters” to find, and its bogeymen to fend off. Its bogeymen are threefold: mainstream science, skeptics, and mainstream media. While the enchanted cryptozoologists decry the alleged “close-mindedness” of others who do not share their enthusiasms, they state without a modest doubt that there is “no way” the Patterson film could be faked or that it is ridiculous to suggest Ness may not hold a giant unknown creature.
My previous posts may have sounded all doom and gloom about cryptozoology, but those were just some things that worried me. Mostly I am actually upbeat about the future of this field.
Despite my complaints that I mentioned above, I think there are a lot of informed, intelligent, and level headed people involved in crytpozoology. There are certainly scientists who are sympathetic to the field if not actively involved in it. Not all Bigfoot organizations are rag tag groups of weekend warriors out monster hunting either. For example, I know there are some groups out there looking for sasquatch that are taking a decidedly scientific approach to the search and I hope that becomes the standard for all field research done. Underfunded and stretched for resources as they may be, they are still out there and it seems they are applying sound methods, which to me can only be a positive thing. It is in these types of operations that I see hope for cryptozoology gaining momentum as a recognized science. If Bigfoot is indeed out there, any evidence found to that effect will only cause this field to pick up speed to the point that it will become very difficult to ignore sasquatch. Mainstream science for whatever reasons may not be taking much interest in creatures such as the sasquatch at this time, but I think more scientists will step forward and become more involved as the case for sasquatch becomes undeniable. This will also embolden those scientists that are sympathetic to cryptozoology, but are unwilling or unable to become fully involved with it.
Loren said a nice quote on another post and it really rang true for me, as many things on this site do. He was basically saying that this is not the age of Ptolemy, we need a few Copernicuses. That was really quite right. Nothing new is ever discovered, especially nothing radically new, without someone taking the initiative to look or take the search for the truth down sometimes little trodden paths. While I personally think there is nothing irrefutable available with regards to sasquatch and am more or less an open minded skeptic, there is no reason why we can’t delve a little deeper and I’m all for leaving open these avenues of research. Whether sasquatch exist or not, I am happy that so many are enthusiastic enough to pursue this mystery and follow up on the leads we have, as scant as those may be sometimes. Science does have its rigors and strict processes, but it is true that there is nothing unscientific about trying to follow a theory to see where it leads. There is a bit of unscientific thinking displayed by some in this field at times, as I mentioned, but this is not the norm. The fact that so many in this community ARE doing things in a scientific manner and doggedly pursuing the evidence gives me hope that, if it is indeed there, it won’t be long before the concrete evidence required to appease mainstream science will be found.
So I am optimistic. I hope nobody thought I was just crypto bashing in my earlier posts. 🙂 I was just letting off steam with some of my frustrations. Like I said, i just have high hopes for cryptozoology and want it to be as good as it can be.