Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/8/09 05:38 PM, RWT wrote: Cryptozoology is a science, just like chemistry, biology, or astrology.
or astrology.
or astrology.
astrology.

After the first sentence, I realized this person was sarcastic, so I didn't read further since we were probably thinking the same thing anyway. Was I right in doing that?

At 1/8/09 07:12 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: After the first sentence, I realized this person was sarcastic, so I didn't read further since we were probably thinking the same thing anyway. Was I right in doing that?

Nope, he actually said some interesting things which I suppose I agree with. I guess he meant 'astronomy'.

At 1/8/09 03:14 PM, Earfetish wrote: uh it wasn't cryptozoologists who found it

No, it was some random fisherman, just like with the coelacanth. That doesn't mean that its capture wasn't a victory for the field.

At 1/8/09 07:24 PM, Earfetish wrote:

At 1/8/09 07:12 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: After the first sentence, I realized this person was sarcastic, so I didn't read further since we were probably thinking the same thing anyway. Was I right in doing that?

Nope, he actually said some interesting things which I suppose I agree with. I guess he meant 'astronomy'.

No, I meant astrology. Not that I think the idea has any merit, just that I haven't seen anything to disprove astrology. But it's a science, no? While there are regional differences, there are entire books on astrological studies. Treatises on what a tortoise shell means. More than there are on chemistry, I bet. As long as it hasn't been disproven and has an accepted system, I accept it as being a valid theory. Most astrology has been reasonably disproven, and so is an ancient science.

I think science has to be testable and falsifiable. If a whole branch of science has been tested and falsified, it's not a science. Or it's no more a science than me telling the weights of elements by trimming my toenails.

At 1/8/09 08:00 PM, RWT wrote: No, I meant astrology. Not that I think the idea has any merit, just that I haven't seen anything to disprove astrology. But it's a science, no?

Aww, nice to see a scientist with an open mind, although astrology probably isn't real anyway.

Shameless bump.

Apparently fossilized snake remains were found in Columbia, and this snake was 40-50 ft long.
Does this help the case of Cryptozoology? Because most likely now cryptozoologists will claim there still might be live snakes this long.

At 2/5/09 01:07 AM, BrianEtrius wrote:

Shameless bump.

Apparently fossilized snake remains were found in Columbia, and this snake was 40-50 ft long.
Does this help the case of Cryptozoology? Because most likely now cryptozoologists will claim there still might be live snakes this long.

Then they don't realise that a lot of cold blooded creatures were that size when the globe was hotter (ie dinosaurs) but now cold-blooded creatures have got to be significantly smaller because the globe is cooler.

At 2/5/09 01:15 AM, Earfetish wrote: Then they don't realise that a lot of cold blooded creatures were that size when the globe was hotter (ie dinosaurs) but now cold-blooded creatures have got to be significantly smaller because the globe is cooler.

But if there is a chance that they do exist then isn't it worth studying?

At 2/5/09 05:29 PM, aninjaman wrote: But if there is a chance that they do exist then isn't it worth studying?

What do you mean 'studying'? I don't think we should purposefully seek out unicorns. Well actually whatever business wants to promote searching for mythical beings is welcome to but I don't think we should support it or we should respect the 'researchers'.

At 2/6/09 12:22 AM, Earfetish wrote:

At 2/5/09 05:29 PM, aninjaman wrote: But if there is a chance that they do exist then isn't it worth studying?

What do you mean 'studying'? I don't think we should purposefully seek out unicorns. Well actually whatever business wants to promote searching for mythical beings is welcome to but I don't think we should support it or we should respect the 'researchers'.

If it can be studied its a valid science.
Also have you considered cryptozoologists are not studying to see if mythical creatures are real but more studying the myths themselves.

At 2/6/09 05:00 PM, aninjaman wrote: Also have you considered cryptozoologists are not studying to see if mythical creatures are real but more studying the myths themselves.

That's not cryptozooology then, that's history / sociology / anthropology

you're talking about people who look for unicorns, not people who write about cultures that believe in unicorns

It's a valid science in some respects. If they find an animal that was thought to be dead and find out it's still going strong, then that's quite important. Especially because it's estimated that deep in the sea there's still hundreds of undiscovered sea creatures that should be dead.

As far as finding if the yeti or big-foot or the loch ness monster exists, it has worn out its use. Extensive research in the Himalayas and in loch ness and anywhere else almost guarantees that they don't exist. Not to mention the fact that a lot of them are admittedly hoaxes. Yet they're still searching.

At 2/7/09 07:12 AM, SeaBoundRhino wrote: It's a valid science in some respects. If they find an animal that was thought to be dead and find out it's still going strong, then that's quite important.

Find one self-proclaimed cryptozoologist who found a new animal that was thought to be dead. Zoologists do all the work, cryptozooologists look for unicorns.

Especially because it's estimated that deep in the sea there's still hundreds of undiscovered sea creatures that should be dead.

Zoology.

Admitted hoaxes. Yet they're still searching.

Because that is cryptozoology. Looking for mythical beasts.