Wikipedia

1543 readers

18 users here now

A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.

Rules:

Only links to Wikipedia permitted
Please stick to the format "Article Title (other descriptive text/editorialization)"

Recommended:

If possible, when submitting please delete the "m." from "en.m.wikipedia.org". This will ensure people clicking from desktop will get the full Wikipedia website.
Interested users can find add-ons and scripts which do this automatically.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Cryptozoology (en.wikipedia.org)

submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (11 children)

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

That's interesting.

I guess after they found the proof 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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 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

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)