Talk:Cryptozoology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Archives
[edit] Can't Figure Out How to Fix It
Rather than just trying to change something and maybe angering folks, I'd like to point out something here. The beginning definition of this article rubs me a bit the wrong way:
Cryptozoology is the study of animals that are presumed (at least by the researcher) to exist, but for which conclusive proof is missing; the term also includes the study of animals generally considered extinct, but which are still occasionally reported.
The part that bugs me is "at least by the researcher." In many books I've read on cryptozoology, the researcher does not presume that the cryptid in question exists, just that it might exist. It is the witnesses and the folks who believe the witnesses who believe the cryptid exists. Cryptozoologists are often investigating with an open mind, with the initial assumption that a real animal that is genuinely new might be involved, but not an absolute belief.
Perhaps we should say Cryptozoology is the study of animals that are presumed to possibly exist, but for which conclusive proof is missing; ... Cyber Pop 22:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC) April 21, 2006
-
- I agree with CyberPop, that "(at least by the researcher)" seems to be inaccurate, but additionally it does not seem to be NPOV . Since no-one has posted an objection in the week since you posted that suggestion, I am changing it now. Pyrofysh 12:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster defines cryptozoology as the study of and search for animals, and especially legendary animals, in order to evaluate whether or not such creatures have existed. It makes no statement as to what is presumed by anyone. If you say that anyone presumes anything then you are opening yourself to the question who says so? and an inevitable challenge to the authority of your sources. Also, cryptid appears to me to be a neologism not recognized by mainstream sources, such as Merriam-Webster, and though it may be a convenient term the use of such a word may detract from the credibility of the writing. Cryptonymius 16:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggested merger
The lonely article Cryptozoa could be merged with this main article as it doesn't say much. --apers0n 04:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is a lonely article that needs some love, but this isn't an appropriate merger target WilyD 08:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Nessie doesn't belong with microscopic animals. Initiael 02:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think what this merge proposal hinges on is whether or not all Cryptozoa should be considered under the umbrella of cryptozoology. From the (scant) information in the cryptozoa article, it seems that the term cryptozoa doesn't apply solely to species whose existence is uncertain. Rather, it appears to apply to a set of species, a number of which have not been discovered. This differs from the normal definition of cryptozoology as I understand it. This is a strong difference and important in determining whether these two articles should be merged. Cryptozoa seems to include discovered species that are viewed by the scientific community to actually or very probably exist. Alternatively, cryptozoology involves the study of those species which might exist, but the scientific community has not yet established enough evidence to suggest they actually exist. Therefore, assuming that the information in the cryptozoa artical is accurate, let's not merge these articles.--Pyrofysh 13:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'll mark cryptozoa as a stub in a few moments - hopefully someone with more knowledge can provide eough informaiton to clear the difference up.--Pyrofysh 13:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I see no logical basis for merging the cryptozoology article with the cryptozoa article; they are separate concepts. Its not merely a question of cryptozoology being primarily concerned with macro-organisms, so to speak.KevinOKeeffe 15:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't even think cryptozoa has anything to do with cryptozoology...the article certainly doesn't indicate anything. Perhaps the root used was the same, but for a different purpose? I highly doubt they have anything in common.
Cryptozoa in the tiny wikipedia article definitely refer to verifiably existing creatures, even though some may not have yet been catalogued. One definition I found says: "The term 'cryptozoic fauna' was coined by Dendy (1895) to describe 'the assemblage of small terrestrial animals found dwelling in darkness beneath stones, rotten logs, the bark of trees, and in other similar situations." The text goes on to say, however, that the term "never attained wide usage," but also that it's sometimes extended to include "all animals that avoid the light of day." This was from Lamont C. Cole, "A Study of the Cryptozoa of an Illinois Woodland," Ecological Monographs, vol 16, no 1. This is a very different group of animals from those sometimes highly hypothetical creatures studied under "cryptozoology". Peter Delmonte 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Concern: Why is Science being Bastardized by the Scientific Community?
Wow ... this is rich (and true opinions of negascientists) ... "Cryptozoology is often considered a pseudoscience by skeptical mainstream zoologists and biologists ... cryptozoology per se has never been fully embraced by the scientific community."
The purpose of science is to understand the true universe around us. So, why the golly is so called "main-stream" science have a problem with research on hypthosies? That makes me ill. The scientific method requires hypothosis as a base, and then tests/watches to see if true or not. Just because something is difficult to test for ... does not make it "not science" (ie. their so-called "pseudoscience"). As long as assumptions are minimized, and work is open and logical ... this makes many decent cryptozoologists true scientists (though yes ... there are a few bad eggs in every bunch, some bunches more than others). I guess, to negascientists, in order to study any organism, it needs to first bite one severely in the buttocks. Many of the purveyors pseudoscience are a hinderance to the advancement of knowledge and science. For shame! --206.127.114.34 15:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC) Krack
- Roughly speaking, the problem is that while some try to investigate cryptozoological topics scientificly, many do not. Science does not require hypothesis, for example. Instead, the important criterion is following the Scientific method. Beware, of course, of Cargo cult science, which is rampant in the cryptozoological community. WilyD 17:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- So, roughly speaking, politics are an important consideration for science? Because popularity matters (in that if a bunch of "snake oil peddlers" outnumber legitimate researchers ... they [the peddlers] spoil it for the rest of society). Kind of sounds pompous. What defines a legitimate researcher ... and who defines precisely how rigid to the Scientific method must we follow. I am a huge supporter in the Scientific method for separating the fact from fiction in the end. However, the prejudgements, political, social, and academic concerns have no place in Science (this is just my opinion). After all ... science is the study of reality ... and it belongs to us all. The challenge for our world ... is to find the balance, between the whackos (people who have no standards of study, or are just imagination and zero substance), and the organizational-nazis (people, usually with lots of credentials, who believe they always know better). C'est la vie. 206.127.114.34 03:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Krack
I don't think it is a pseudoscience, as there are animals that were once thought to be extint but turned out to be very much still alive. Anything that follows the scientific method is science. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.215.104.4 (talk • contribs) .
- Sort of, but lots of people interested in Cryptozoology don't follow the scientific method at all. More accurate would be to say it's a subject that can be studied scientifically, but rarely is studied scientifically. WilyD 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Graptolites
This article clearly states that living graptolites have been found. As far as I can tell, they haven't. There is nothing to indicate that any living thing is closely related to graptolites in the Wikipedia article or on any article on Google. Also, I studied geology as a student (since 1882, you probably guessed) and I remember learning that graptolites are extinct. Man with two legs 13:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- A couple of points:
- You may dispute that they're extinct (although it only took me a few seconds of searching to a reference to some prof who says that species X is a grapolite or the like) but that's not admissable content. WP:OR
- Our own memories are often inaccurate, especially when based on dated information.
- I find it hard to believe (no offence) that you're been a student for 125 years
- WilyD 13:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's three points. The new 50% extra couple. By 'since' I meant 'later than' rather than 'continually from that date'. And I'm pretty certain we were told they are extinct because they are rather important in the fossil record. That was why I immediately looked in Wikipedia and other sources for confirmation and found precisely the opposite. What is certain is that the majority of paleontologists believe them to be extinct so they are cannot be rigorously claimed as living fossils in the same way that a coelacanth can. Man with two legs 14:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently we don't speak the same dialect of english, but a couple is some dialects can mean two, three, maybe even four or five. I'll try to find a high quality citation for the point, the disputed templates are reasonable until then. And the last point was a bit of a joke - sorry if that wasn't clear. WilyD 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Even I grasped that it was tongue in cheek. My serious response failed to make clearly the point that I studied geology well after the alleged date of discovery of living graptolites so if they were regarded as scientific fact, I would not have been taught that they were extinct. Thanks for your linguistic information: I suspect that all sorts of trouble has been caused by that one. Man with two legs 09:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- The phrase "a couple" means two. Anyone who thinks it means "two, three, maybe even four or five" is wrong. Many people make this mistake, but they are all grammatically incorrect. You are probably thinking of the phrase "a few". Anecdotal evidence on your part only proves that a lot of people make the same mistake.
- I'm not mistaken, I merely speak a different dialect of english than you do. There are some dialects of english where "a couple" does not denotate or connotate two. WilyD 14:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- On a side note not having anything to do with the main discussion, the word "couple" as used by Wily is not, in fact, incorrect. In American Standard English, the phrase "a couple" can mean a small number of objects or whatnot and is not necessarily limited to doubling whatever word it modifies. Americans will often consider it synonymous with "few" but with the distinction of being able to refer to two of something. It is simple descriptive linguistics, the study of how words are used within everyday language that tells us this. "Ain't", in another example, while denounced by "language purists" (there is no such thing as a pure language), is a widely understood word and is considered correct in many dialectal usages. If many people are making the same language "mistake" and yet it is widely understood and accepted, it is no longer a grammatical mistake.--TheFighter'sQueen 14:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently we don't speak the same dialect of english, but a couple is some dialects can mean two, three, maybe even four or five. I'll try to find a high quality citation for the point, the disputed templates are reasonable until then. And the last point was a bit of a joke - sorry if that wasn't clear. WilyD 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's three points. The new 50% extra couple. By 'since' I meant 'later than' rather than 'continually from that date'. And I'm pretty certain we were told they are extinct because they are rather important in the fossil record. That was why I immediately looked in Wikipedia and other sources for confirmation and found precisely the opposite. What is certain is that the majority of paleontologists believe them to be extinct so they are cannot be rigorously claimed as living fossils in the same way that a coelacanth can. Man with two legs 14:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The story is actually as follows: a new species of pterobranch named Cephalodiscus has been discovered in 1882. At that time Graptolites were thought to be an unrelated group of animals known only from fossil records. Then in 1993, a scientist named P.N. Dilly published an article in J. of Zoology describing a new species of Cephalodiscus dubbed C. graptolitoides. This species carries on its skeleton, structures strikingly similar to graptolites and Dilly proposed that the members of the extinct group were in fact fossil pterobranchs (or that Cephalodiscus is a living graptolite). This is how the story came that living graptolites have been found. The wording in the article is somewhat twisted and need to be corrected. ArthurWeasley 23:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Massive external links removal?
Recently, a number of external links were removed (see the history comparison that shows this). The external links list was long enough that it probably needed some pruning, but many very high-quality sites were removed, while some of those left were of questionable value. I think there should be some debate as to the merits of the various sites before such drastic cuts are made in the article, so I've restored the original external links list, for now, pending a better pruning process. Please don't revert back to the same list of external links unless you put some reasons why here. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Coelacanth
The section of the Coelacanth is marked as "accuracy is disputed". There is no discussion of this in this page. While I am unable to verify the accuracy of this paragraph, it fits well with what I know from other sources (that were more vague than this one unfortunately). The Coelacanth is currently well-known as a living fossil. I recommend the removal of the "accuracy is disputed" mark. 69.232.188.119 Joshua
- I can't find anything wrong with it either. I'll remove the tag, and replace it with a [citation needed] . risk 14:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think "accuracy is disputed" referred to "living graptolites", not to Coelacanth - see:
-
- and discussion about graptolites above.
-
-
- Talking about living fossils, the Monoplacophora are a much better case for Cryptozoologists if you ask me. They were thought to be extinct since the Devonian, some 360 Mya, until a living specimen (Neopilina) has been dragged out from the ocean floor in 1952. The "living graptolite" thing is at most controversial and the actual facts are badly distorted in the text. I would remove the paragraph about graptolites altogether as it does not help the case, on the contrary.ArthurWeasley 16:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Vandalism to tis page
Be aware that an anonymouse user, 72.150.38.147, made two vandalism edits to this page and one oto another page The Colossus of Rhodes. Wacth for his/her edits and revert if he/she satys at it. Thanks Lisapollison 05:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
