Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 This one has that little touch of Authenticity. Cryptids are hypothetical species of animals known from anecdotal evidence and/or other evidence insufficient to prove them with certainty. The term "cryptid" was first coined in 1983 by John Wall. The study of cryptids is known as Cryptozoology Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 This one has that little touch of Authenticity. Cryptids are hypothetical species of animals known from anecdotal evidence and/or other evidence insufficient to prove them with certainty. The term "cryptid" was first coined in 1983 by John Wall. The study of cryptids is known as Cryptozoology Tim The definition I provided for "cryptid" was my own formulation (based on a consideration of the many potential definitions already available), no doubt there are better ones out there including your own perhaps (hey, it was the best I could do in 10 minutes or so). But for the purposes of this rhetorical exercise with Saskeptic, I'll stick with mine. Because Saskeptic's implication is very significant, as the term might have 10 or more distinct meanings. So it is important to be precise about the way the term is being used. And I am using the term in a way that is consistent with the definition I provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 All is cool, i was just giving ya a bump in hopes to find out who you were, "southernyahoo" beat me too it, of course i could have mailed ya but that ain't any fun ~ Welcome Back it will be nice to read some of your posts again. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 It's good to be back, and thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Do it without relying on the argument from incredulity and I'll be suitably impressed. Easily done. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's a dozen. Easy to find pictures of humans touching, examining, or interacting with all the above critters. Not so easy when it's bigfoot. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Now RayG, your collage is a disappointing tautological exercise, as I hope it is obvious to everyone that ex-cryptids are of course distinguishable from cryptids due to the fact of discovery. I trust that Saskeptic's intention is to distinguish cryptids from cryptids rather than ex-cryptids from cryptids, as the latter entails neither challenge nor interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 "Cryptid" can be defined in a number of ways. To keep it straightforward I will offer the following definition: "Cryptid: a reported creature that has not been described by science, whose existence seems so improbable to the scientific community that there is no consensus that the matter is worthy of study" Okay, but I'm not sure what you mean by "no consensus that the matter is worthy of study." I assume this means that a roughly equivalent number of scientists think that the reported species is worthy of study as think it is not worthy of study. The definition is also unclear as to whether or not scientists have actually looked for it. To me, a cryptid is like bigfoot, i.e., a species long-reported, a species that continues to be reported, and a species that scientists have repeatedly looked for but failed to find. With bigfoot (and yeti, yeren, almas, orang pendek, etc.) I would include in this category lake monsters, mokele-mbembe, thunderbirds, modern pterosaurs, etc. I also think the term can apply to previously described but extinct species that continue to spawn reports but for which our best efforts cannot confirm they still exist, e.g., thylacines, Ivory-billed Woodpecker, etc. I don't think the term should be applied to species like the Coelocanth because there was no prior record of the fish in folklore that "science" was pooh-poohing based on multiple failed attempts to confirm its existence. Just because its discovery as an extant species was really surprising doesn't mean it was a cryptid. For gorillas, okapis, and I suppose to an extent giant squid, there arguably was a folklore of the species that preceded discovery by Western scientists. (But note below how the Greeks and Romans seem to have known about those squid in antiquity.) In that respect, they have the potential to be cryptids. But they fail because they were readily discovered once those scientists actually made it to "deepest, darkest Africa" and once we developed the technology to really start exploring the ocean depths, respectively. Note that the Congo Basin has now been rather well explored (compared to the 19th Century), so the fact that we have yet to find a mokele-mbembe makes that species a cryptid. On the other hand, gorillas and okapis don't meet my criteria as cryptids because they were easily confirmed. Giant squid have spawned mariner's tales for centuries, but some people mistakenly think they were finally discovered by science a few years ago - not so. Steenstrup appears to have published the first description of giant squid in 1857, and there have been literally hundreds of specimens examined since then. What's more, Aristotle wrote of giant squid in the 4th Century B.C., and Pliny the Elder provides a description of a specimen examined in the 1st Century. Wikipedia provides the references for those last items as follows: ^ Aristotle. N.d. Historia animalium. ^ Pliny. N.d. Naturalis historia. When Aristotle and Pliny are the references for something, then "science" has known about that something for a long time. The thing that was a recent discovery related to giant squid is that a live one was photographed in the wild for the first time in 2004. Very cool - yes. Cryptid - no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 My bad. Upon re-reading your post I see I was mistaken. I shall carry on as if I were normal. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Could be. You know they say about studs with big feet.... In addition to what Sas said let us not forget that people also could lie about sightings to get some money and fame out of appearing on bf tv shows sharing their supposed encounters too. I think there is also a measure of thrill some seek in duping people as well. Some could make money by lying about being the man in the suit. How many different people have claimed to be the one to "wear the suit" in the Patterson video? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Okay, but I'm not sure what you mean by "no consensus that the matter is worthy of study." I assume this means that a roughly equivalent number of scientists think that the reported species is worthy of study as think it is not worthy of study. The definition is also unclear as to whether or not scientists have actually looked for it. Allow me to clarify it for you. What I mean by “no consensus that the matter is worthy of study†is that investigations into the creature are regarded as being potentially or actually unscientific. Consequently, the investigations you imagine to be routine are largely proscribed by the potential for ostracism (yes, even scientists exert social pressure). Thus we may affirm that the matter has been adequately investigated only by concluding that the expectation that discovery was unlikely has been vindicated by the failure to discover the creature. Unfortunately this is a development of the argument from ignorance: as long as our expectations are not contradicted, they must be both accurate and appropriate (even if they act to limit the potential for inquiry). The case of BF is further burdened by the argument from incredulity, which is simply that some have difficulty imagining ways in which a creature might elude scientific description for a protracted period of time, given a moderate amount of investigative effort. Yet is this truly a scientific attitude? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 There's no need to clarify for me because I had already clarified for you. Is there something you don't like about my definition of a cryptid? If you want to explore your thoughts re: scientists being ostracized for looking for certain species that's OK too. Just bear in mind that that's not my understanding of a cryptid. (Also note that if bigfoot is a cryptid because, for example, Jeff Meldrum is ostracized for looking for it*, I'm prepared to argue that Jeff Meldrum's career is humming along just fine.) So, based on your definition, what are some examples of species for which those that search for them had been ostracized until they were vindicated when the species was ultimately discovered? *If you've got an example of someone ostracized for showing interest in studying a creature rumored, but not proven to exist, I hope you'll demonstrate the distinction that the person was ostracized for doing the research at all, as opposed to doing research poorly. One can certainly do legitimate science on bigfoot. It doesn't become pseudoscience because of the subject matter, it becomes pseudoscience when the subject matter is sloppily and/or uncritically pursued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Please define "cryptid." Then please provide some examples of these cryptids that were subsequently discovered. (Note, if you suggest Coelocanth, gorilla, or okapi I am well prepared to demonstrate how such creatures are in no way legitimately comparable to "bigfoot.") Taz Tiger doesn't count either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Taz Tiger doesn't count either! Why not? I think a pretty good case can be made for them as cryptids. What do you think should rule them out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 Why not? I think a pretty good case can be made for them as cryptids. What do you think should rule them out? As Tasmanian Tigers are considered recently extinct, within the past 100 years. Would this not be considered a re-discovery of a known extinct species and not a cryptid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 As Tasmanian Tigers are considered recently extinct, within the past 100 years. Would this not be considered a re-discovery of a known extinct species and not a cryptid? Sure, but to me the important part of "cryptid" is that people claim to encounter them but no one is able to actually prove that they're around. I understand that other folks might be more stringent and restrict the term to refer to creatures not yet described, but I'm happy to expand the concept a bit to include known species for which the scientific consensus is that it is now extinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts