Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and subculture that searches for and studies unknown, legendary, or extinct animals whose present existence is disputed or unsubstantiated, particularly those popular in folklore, such as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Yeti, the chupacabra, the Jersey Devil, or the Mokele-mbembe. Cryptozoologists refer to these entities as cryptids, a term coined by the subculture. Because it does not follow the scientific method, cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience by mainstream science: it is neither a branch of zoology nor of folklore studies.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I never considered cryptozoology to be a pseudoscience, since so many animals thought to be not real were then discovered to be real.

    I guess after they found proof of all the big ones that used to be legends, they circled back around to “definitely not”.

    which is where people were before they found Komodo dragons and giant squids and gorillas.

    okapis.

    okapis and platypi can be forgiven, they don’t even look real when you’re staring at them.

    but those are all subjects of cryptozoology that evidence found to be real.

    • dantheclamman@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Perhaps pseudoscience is too strong a word. It only becomes pseudoscience for me when it involves deception (such as portraying nonscientific narrative approaches as being motivated by the scientific method), but people have different bars for it

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        yea, that makes more sense.

        I feel like “esoteric” field of science or the like makes a lot more sense.

        While it’s a small field that few serious scientists are devoted to, they used and use scientific methods to find a lot of animals previously thought to be myths.

      • joonazan@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Maybe it doesn’t involve fabricating evidence but at least it is very much based on trusting sources that are obviously nonsense. There are mythical phenomena that have a real explanation but those have been investigated because they are described in many independent documents.

        • dantheclamman@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yes, one shouldn’t trust many of the sources, but it is still very interesting to think of how various cryptids relate back to the cultures they arose from, and what they signify about the relationship of that culture to their local environment. Darren Naish has written a lot of good stuff about this

  • Jomega@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Oof. I went through a phase where I wanted to be one of these in middle school. I cringe every time I hear the word now.