Oof. I went through a phase where I wanted to be one of these in middle school. I cringe every time I hear the word now.
I never considered cryptozoology to be a pseudoscience, since so many animals thought to be not real were then discovered to be real.
I guess after they found proof of 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.
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
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.
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
yea, that makes more sense.
I feel like "esoteric" field of science or the like makes a lot more sense.
While it's a small field that few serious scientists are devoted to, they used and use scientific methods to find a lot of animals previously thought to be myths.
A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.
Rules:
Recommended: