Talk:Cryptozoology

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cryptozoology article.
Article policies
 This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

For older discussion, see: /Archive1 /Archive2

Contents

[edit] Not Zoology

Simply because Cryptozoology has the word zoology in it, does not make it a subfield of Zoology. Unless someone can point to sources indicating a consensus by the scientific community that cryptozoology is an accepted subfield of zoology, I'm removing the Zoology infobox. Justin chat 08:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It IS zoology, but nobody here will accept that. Elasmosaurus (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Who and what exactly defines the "scientific community" and how exactly does it come to a consensus? --Nacnud298 (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:HEUVELMANS.jpg

Image:HEUVELMANS.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment- pseudoscience

Who defines whether or not this is pseudoscience? This seems to be a relative classification, depending upon the observer.66.197.222.197 (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice also this: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 66.197.222.197 (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Identifying pseudoscience can be done in an objective manner. Cryptozoology fails to use parsimony in its reasoning, it's theories are immeasurable, untestable and unfalsifiable, it relies heavily on testimonials and local legend, science by press conference, lack of progress, groupthink and misleading language (using scientific names for animals that aren't even known to exist). Zoology itself is responsible for identifying previously identified animals. Cryptozoology, at least in its modern form, simply ignores the scientific method and replaces it primarily with myth and legend. The most telling factor, is that modern science itself considers Cryptozoology more of a Paranormal / Parapsychology discipline than a Zoology discipline.
As for the ArbCom case, that had to do with behavior of editors, not with the content. However, in the findings of fact you'll notice something:

Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

There is no question Cryptozoology has a large following, but has effectively no mainstream scientific following. In fact, the only notable zoologist that supported the theory was the founder of the field (Bernard Heuvelmans). And the only reason he is notable, is because he founded Cryptozoology. To me, this field is pretty clearly pseudoscience. Justin chat 18:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Justin. Cryptozoology does not use the scientific method. It replaces the fundamental concept of falsifiability with belief not based upon evidence. It is indeed pseudoscience. Yes, occasionally, cryptozoologic organisms are discovered by science (for example, the (coelacanth]]). However, this fact does not negate the fact that the basic principles of cryptozoology are non-scientific. Aleta (Sing) 18:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
And it's further notable that such "cryptids" (and that term is often used incorrectly, such as the coelacanth) are discovered by accident, or by biologists, zoologists, anthropologists etc. To date, I'm not aware of any "cryptozoologist" discovering any species of animal. Justin chat 07:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
To my mind, the name cryptozoology is the problem. The suffix indicates a science to most people. By and large, fans of the field do not normally call themselves scientists. They just enjoy thinking about the undiscovered "wonders of nature". As has been pointed out here, no schools offer degrees in the field. This is, I think, a telling point.
Since the main object of cryptozoology is to discover (or "re-discover") spectacular creatures, and since, as far as I am aware, no cryptozoologist has ever succeeded in doing so, as a science it would have to be considered a major failure.
Cryptozoology is a notable category of human endeavor, but it fits no conventional definition of science. One can avoid calling it a "pseudoscience" if one wishes by merely noting that it is a "hobby" or "calling" for most of its followers. It is not correct, though, to call it science. Tim Ross·talk 11:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Cryptozoologists, by and large, do study the field with the trapping of science but not the methods - classic "Cargo Cult Science" or "Pseudoscience". Certainly not everyone within the field is necessarily pseudoscientific - but just as some people study regular biology pseudoscientifically, and yet we call biology a science, so too can we recognise the cryptozoological community is pseudoscientific, even if it's not appropriate to so label each practitioner. WilyD 17:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience from an objective point of view, as it usually ends up presenting "evidence" that is later proved to be false. The animals or "cryptids" that are "studied" in cryptozoology can be studied by proper scientists (such as zoologists), but in this case it is not cryptozoology. --Merond e 06:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This article may help: Anomalous phenomena. Particularly this section: Anomalous phenomena#One anomalous phenomenon. Science seeks to make universal statements and employs falsifiability in that pursuit. Cryptozoology, on the other hand, focuses on looking for anomalies, creatures thought not to exist. Science seeks to be practical.

A statement is only complete insofar as it accurately describes something free from anomalies. As in the example where the truth of the statement 'all swans are white' is falsified by the counterexample of the single black swan, any theory is shown to be falsified by a verified singular anomaly. For example, the statement 'dinosaurs are extinct' would be falsified by the discovery of just one remaining dinosaur. The burden of cryptozoologists, then, would be to find a single example of a cryptid to disprove the statement 'cryptids do not exist'. Of course, as cryptozoologist Loren Coleman notes, every time a cryptid is "discovered" (e.g., giant panda, mountain gorilla, okapi, coelacanth, megamouth shark, saola) then that species becomes part of zoology, and not cryptozoology.[citation needed] Reversely, falsification is why various fields that pursue anomalous phenomena are often seen as not being worthwhile in mainstream science, or, by extreme skeptics, as pseudoscientific. If the aim of science is to move observations to laws, or to weed out singular existential statements in favor of universal statements through testing against falsifying propositions, anomalies suffer from a missing component of the scientific method. A falsifying proposition of anomalies as deviations from the norm would be the norm. Testing for the norm is seen as redundant.

--Nealparr (talk to me) 08:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, cryptozoology isn't pseudoscience. It's zoology, except it's studying animals who haven't been proven yet. I would put that in the article, but of course those annoying little skeptics keep undoing my edits. Elasmosaurus (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About cryptozoology

The deletion was a mistake. Apologies 133.68.126.133 (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaurs

Unlike what our "scientific textbooks" tell us there could be dinosaurs still alive. There is so much information on this topic I couldn't mention every thing. List: Ogopogo, Loch Ness monster, Champ, Mokele-mbembe, Mbielu-mbielu-mbielu, and MANY others. Anyone who disagrees please go to www.genesispark.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.191.141 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nessie and ogopogo aren't dinosaurs, they're plesiosaurs. Anyway, I believe in living dinosaurs too. Burrunjor and Mokele-Mbembe especially. I'm glad somebody FINALLY agrees with me! Elasmosaurus (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zoology Box

If Cryptozoology is going to have a Zoology Box on the page, can I suggest that someone put in a picture of something "crypto" . When you go to any of the other Zoology catagory pages there is a picture of something from that catagory in the box. re: entomology shows an insect, mammalogy shows a mammal. Cryptozoology just shows the zoology mosaic (which is actually someone inappropriate since all the animals in the mosaic have been shown to exist). AJseagull1 (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Página espejo de la Wikipedia
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo