 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | It bears repeating |
| From: | |
Stu
|
posted
Mon, Sep 21 2009, 6:51pm
|
From 'The Skeptics Dictionary' by Robert Todd Carroll:
cryptozoology -
Cryptozoology is, literally, the study of hidden animals. It is the study of such creatures as the Australian bunyip, Bigfoot, the chupacabra, and the Loch Ness monster. It is not a recognized branch of the science of zoology.
Cryptozoology relies heavily upon testimonials and circumstantial evidence in the form of legends and folklore, and the stories and alleged sightings of mysterious beasts by indigenous peoples, explorers, and travellers. Since cryptozoologists spend most of their energy trying to establish the existence of creatures, rather than examining actual animals, they are more akin to psi researchers than to zoologists.
Expertise in zoology, however, is asserted to be a necessity for work in cryptozoology, according to Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans, who coined the term to describe his investigations of animals unknown to science. This focus on evaluating the evidence for "cryptids" was continued by the International Society for Cryptozoology, which is now defunct.
Heuvelmans was right. How could he not be? |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Subject: | | Re: It bears repeating |
| From: | |
Ursustyrannis
|
posted
Sun, Sep 27 2009, 8:10pm
|
|
That description is sadly accurate. It is still damned insulting though. Basically dumping folks such as Meldrum and Naish into the woo-woo category. |
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
