Cryptozoology: what it is, what it investigates, examples and why it is not a science

Many people associate cryptozoology with an entertainment field that ranges from movies to fiction to “mystery” programs, going through horror stories told before the bonfire of a camp. However, one thing has nothing to do with the other.

It is perfectly possible to enjoy certain horror stories or immerse yourself in mythological worlds without wanting to have anything to do with cryptozoology, since the latter is not a form of entertainment. In fact, its defenders believe that this is, above all, a way to obtain valuable information about the world in which we live; that is to say, that its objective would be of an intellectual nature, and not of personal enjoyment. But… Does cryptozoology really have the capacity to generate valuable knowledge? Here we will see why the answer to this question is a clear No.

• Related article: "Comparative Psychology: the animal part of psychology"

What is cryptozoology?

When defining the meaning of the term "cryptozoology", we can focus on its etymology, which In this case, it is necessary to see what the ancient Greek words that compose it mean: cryptos, zoos and logos.

On this basis, cryptozoology can be understood as the study of hypothetical animals that remain hidden, that is to say, creatures of which we would only know indications and whose existence had not yet been fully incorporated into scientific knowledge. These creatures are usually called cryptids, and in most cases they are characterized as beings that at the moment are only part of popular knowledge.

In other words, cryptids, by definition, have not been accepted by the scientific community as materially existent entities aside from legends, ideas of mythological origin or anecdotes magnified and exaggerated by the media. If we get philosophical, it could be said that the ontological status of these animals is that of what the social sciences study and the humanities, as human inventions embodied in stories, paintings, pieces of music, or even stories of the type creepypasta.

Now, proponents of cryptozoology believe that cryptids do exist beyond the world of constructs. that is, they grant cryptids a material ontological status outside of language, art, and symbols. What's more, point out that if its existence is not accepted by the scientific community, it is not because of the impossibility of that happening (being only beings of legend), but because of supposed limitations in the research methods used.

• You may be interested in: "The 6 main branches of the natural sciences"

Examples of cryptids

Some of the most famous cryptids are:

• The Yeti
• Steller's sea monkey
• The Bigfoot, Sasquatch or Skunk Ape (this last denomination is used only in Florida)
• The Loch Ness Monster
• The Chupacabras
• Nandi Bear

Is cryptozoology a science?

Cryptozoology is not a science; in most cases, what lies behind it is pseudoscience, and even in extreme cases one could even speak of paraciencia, as we shall see.

Now, this does not mean that cryptids are described as entities with magical powers or properties that break with natural laws. In many cases, these hypothetical animals have the appearance of living things that could exist and that are not very different from other well-known creatures. by zoology. What makes cryptozoology not a science is not so much in the attributed characteristics cryptids, but in their way of investigating and conceiving the creation of knowledge in general. Here we will review these criticisms.

In the first place, cryptozoology places great importance on the descriptions of cryptids as they are transmitted through popular culture, that is, they are places great value on anecdotal evidence and testimonies from people who claim to have seen these animals, without always adopting a critical point of view and consider psychological and social conditions that can influence their version: suggestion, modification of memories, desire to be notorious in the media communication, etc.

The main raw material of cryptozoology are the anecdotes that have been transmitted through word of mouth or have transpired to the media. without providing conclusive evidence of the existence of those creatures. The supposed material indications of the existence of cryptids, such as strange footprints in the snow or a blurred photograph, are taken as complements of these narratives, elements that can reinforce them, but not as elements that can be on an equal footing next to the stories and legends.

That is to say, it is assumed that whoever has experienced these sightings, by saying that he has seen a cryptid, has more valuable information than can reach another person, although that does not have to be the case, since if they exist, those cryptids would leave clues beyond those sightings.

In second place, cryptozoology manipulates theory so that the empirical can be integrated into it. This implies overlooking that science not only consists of accumulating empirical knowledge, but that this must be able to generate fertile hypotheses given a degree of given scientific and technological development, and must give rise to ideas that do not contradict each other or with those that come from other disciplines scientific.

For example, the idea that there are one or more giant reptiles of the plesiosaur style in Loch Ness conflicts with several elements of scientific knowledge: that very large animals need large areas to live and perpetuate themselves as a species, that there is no plesiousaur fossil after the Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction (66 million years ago), that aquatic reptiles need to surface to breathe several times a day, etc.

Third, cryptozoology does not have mechanisms to disentangle hypotheses as invalid due to lack of conclusive evidence. It should not be forgotten that the failure to prove a hypothesis after testing it after one or more investigations also provides scientifically relevant knowledge; but as one of the characteristics of cryptids is that they "remain hidden", cryptozoology invents ad hoc arguments to justify that have not yet been discovered, although that means overlooking Ockham's razor and raises many more questions than supposedly resolves.

For example, the idea that a species of large, gorilla-like primates inhabits the forests of North America enters into conflict with the fact that this area of ​​the American continent is populated by more than 300 million people, many of whom they carry smartphones with cameras, and that the forests are full of trapping cameras that automatically film when they detect movement.

• Related article: "Why do people believe in conspiracies?"

And the cases of paraciencia?

In certain cases, cryptozoology doesn't even try to look like science. For example, when their explanations include conspiracy theories that portray "scientists" as an elite deliberately trying to "hide the truth." In these cases, we can say that it becomes a paraciencia, by letting go of the pretense of consolidating itself as a science.

Something similar occurs in those cases in which the supposedly investigated cryptids have magical powers or defy the laws of nature. However, it is debatable that these creatures can be considered animals, since this concept, that of "animal" has become part of the modern evolutionary synthesis, and that implies accepting that they are subject to the principles of biological evolution and that they have a common origin with the rest of the representatives of that taxon. Therefore, from another point of view, it could be said that cryptozoology, by definition, can only speak of supposed animals, and not of supernatural entities.

• You may be interested in: "Magical thinking: causes, functions and examples"

Does that mean that the search for new animal species is cryptozoology?

Not much less. It is perfectly valid to pay attention to the testimonies of people who claim to have seen animals that have not been described before by zoology; in fact, this is how some species were discovered, such as gorillas.

However, this information must be critically analyzed in light of the rest of the knowledge that is already available. It is not the same to assume that there may be giants in Rome in the 1st century BC. C. that at present, and cryptozoology could not exist where zoology did not yet exist as such.