3.1.1 Reasoned Analysis and Empirical Claims
Reasoned Analysis
Question at Issue:
How much evidence is there to support cryptozoological claims of the existence of Bigfoot, El Chupacabra, or the Loch Ness Monster?
Evidence and Information:
- Eye-witness accounts
- Testimonials
- YouTube videos
- Folklore/legends/myths
Assumptions:
- Bigfoot is real
- The Loch Ness monster is real (aka the “brain-sucking river monster”)
- Chupacabra is real
- There are people who don’t believe in cryptozoology
- The unexplained can be chalked up to cryptozoology in one way or another
- Cryptids should be considered animals
- If the cryptid creatures did exist there would be DNA evidence supporting their existence.
Concepts:
- Accuracy of evidence
- Bigfoot
- Chupacabra
- Loch Ness monster
- Myths/legends
- Mystical Creatures
- The timeline of sightings
Context:
- Historical
- Legends/myths
- Research papers
- False information
- The beginning of cryptozoology
- Cultural differentiation
- Underlying beliefs behind cryptozoology
Point of View:
- Scientists
- Anthropologists
- Cryptozoologists
- The average person
- Historian
Purpose:
- To prove that there is an adequate amount of evidence supporting the fact that cryptozoology is indeed a pseudoscience.
Implications and Consequences:
- Often, people blindly believe in what they think to be true, such as cryptozoology, because of the misleading information that is available
- The fantastical ideas of cryptozoology could possibly cause issues and problems between groups of people and/or cultures
- If cryptids were to exist, then they would not be considered mythical, rather, the legends surrounding them would be seen as historical; many legends could potentially be reevaluated for their factuality
- Zoology would be transformed by the discovery of one or more cryptid’s existence
Conclusions and interpretations:
- There are more logical explanations for the existence of “evidence” that some claim to support the existence of cryptids
- There is no definitive evidence that proves the existence of cryptids such as Bigfoot, El Chupacabra, and the Loch Ness monster.
Disciplinary Lenses
Genetics
Question at Issue:
Does genetics support Cryptozoology?
Evidence and Information:
- Osteology
- Skeletal remains
- DNA evidence
- Fur
- Scales
- Skin
- Saliva
- Blood
Assumptions:
- Mutations in genetics and DNA can result in cryptid creatures
Concepts:
- Chromosomes
- Mutations
- Cells
- Genes
Context:
- Genetic context
- Biological context
Point of View:
- Osteologists
- Geneticists
Purpose:
- To discover the influence genetics, specifically with DNA, has on cryptozoology
Implications and Consequences:
- Interpretations of DNA and genetics can be manipulated in favor of the belief of cryptozoology
Conclusions and Interpretations:
- DNA and genetics can be analyzed and studied to determine if cryptozoology is possible from the perspective of these creatures being the result of a human mutation
Anthropology
Question at issue:
What role does Anthropology play in Cryptozoology?
Evidence and Information:
- Human biology
- Bones
- Fossils
- Diets and environment of preexisting humans
Assumptions:
- Anthropology has little to no evidence in cryptozoology
- From an anthropologic perspective, cryptozoology’s argument has no factual backing when it comes to humanoid creatures
- Cryptids are manmade
Concepts:
- Imagination
- Culture
- Evolution
- Humanity
Context:
- History of humans
- History of evolution
- Cultural histories
Point of View:
- Anthropologist
- Evolutionary
- Biologists
- Geneticists
- Ethnography
Purpose:
- To understand if there is any indication from the research in anthropology that humans have the potential to evolve into a cryptid
- To assert the origin of cryptozoology
Implications and Consequences:
- Anthropology can either help support or deny the existence of cryptozoology
- Studying human behavior and cultures can help explain the origin of cryptozoology
Conclusions and Interpretations:
- Anthropology can help us understand why cryptozoology might have first begun
- Anthropology disproves the idea that cryptids could be human-born in any way other than from the imaginations of humans
Folklore
Question at Issue:
Do folklore and Cryptozoology go hand-in-hand?
Evidence and Information:
- Ancient tales/myths/legends
- Word of mouth
- Cultural beliefs/traditions
Assumptions:
- The myths and legends that stem from folklore often have a metaphorical meaning rather than a literal one
- Fiction is understood in the context of cultures
- Eyewitnesses cannot always be a trusted source
- Stories passed down through generations can slowly become exaggerated and overall divert from the original story
Concepts:
- Stories
- Oral history
- Traditions
- Legends
- Myths
- Lessons through storytelling
- Deceivability/misconception
Context:
- Traditional aspects of different cultures
- Historical
- Psychological
- Witness statements
Point of View:
- Cultural beliefs
- Oral stories
- Historical
- Folklore/legends/myths
Purpose:
- To understand how folklore has influenced the beliefs behind Cryptozoology
- To establish how folklore is often interpreted as fiction
Implications and Consequences:
- Beliefs in legends and myths that stem from Folklore can lead to people believing in cryptozoology.
Conclusions and Interpretations:
- Folklore, as it is nearly entirely based on fiction, should not be taken literally to be used as evidence.
Zoology
Question at Issue:
How can zoology shed light on the divergences of cryptids from the current studies of animals and their evolution and patterns?
Evidence and Information:
- Research/studies
- Animal DNA
- Bones/fossils
Assumptions:
- Cryptids are often described as being “one-of-a-kind” creatures, rather than a part of a species
- There are still many undiscovered species
- A species requires other of its kind in order to reproduce and exist
- Certain species reside in a particular habitat in which they thrive
- Every species has a predator of some sort, and physical evidence of a dead species is likely to show up in a search for a species in their habitat
Concepts:
- The science of Animal Species
- Reproduction with animals
- Similar features of animals
- Evolution of species
- Habitat
- Circle of life
- Predators
Context:
- Geographical
- Zoology
- Cryptology
Point of View:
- Zoologists
- Cryptozoologist
- Environmentalist
Purpose:
- To show how animal patterns and evolution may indicate whether or not a cryptid such as Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, or Chupacabra has any features that may be most likely impossible based on current research
- To understand what real animals might get confused for a cryptid
Implications and Consequences:
- If it were to be discovered that some kind of cryptid did truly exist, it may indicate that there are species with undiscovered abilities, such as reproduction with small numbers
Conclusions and Interpretations:
- If a cryptid such as Bigfoot, which has been sought after for so many years, has not been discovered dead or alive then it does seem likely that this cryptid is still alive if it were to ever exist
- There are identified species that could be mistaken for a cryptid, such as a bear for Bigfoot or a hyena for the Chupacabra
Empirical Claims
Inductive Reasoning
True Premise 1: Bigfoot is similar to other folklore creatures such as the Sasquatch in Native American, the Yeti in Himalayan folklore, and the Yowie in Aboriginal Australian folklore.
True Premise 2: There have been numerous claims of Bigfoot sightings across America.
Weak Inductive Reasoning: These sightings and folkloric references prove the existence of Bigfoot as multiple accounts have been made. (This ignores the anthropological and social purposes of folklore and ignores counter-evidence)
Logical Conclusion: Widespread folkloric references and evidence of sightings can be accounted for by cultural taboos and general wariness and suspicion surrounding heavily forested and dark or dangerous areas.
Deductive Reasoning
True Premise 1: All animal species have specific genetic sequences.
True Premise 2: The Loch Ness monster is classified as an animal, so it should have a genetic sequence.
True Premise 3: DNA analyses of Loch Ness (the lake where the Loch Ness monster reportedly lives) turned up no mysterious or unknown sequences; only the DNA sequences of giant eels.
Weak Deductive Reasoning: Therefore, we should continue searching for evidence of the Loch Ness Monster through other means since this is just one failure. (This ignores conclusive evidence.)
Logical Conclusion (with resulting inference): Therefore, there is no DNA evidence for the Loch Ness monster (and alleged sightings of Nessie are best explained as the momentary presence of giant eels at the surface of the lake).
Abductive Reasoning
Observation: The first Chupacabra sighting was in Puerto Rico in 1995. The witness claimed to have seen a “beast which had two legs and a spiky back.” In the same year movie called Species came out in which the Chupacabra had a “strong resemblance to the alien-human hybrid creature” in the movie. The witness had confessed to watching the movie prior to the claimed sighting (Seigel).
Weak Explanation: The eyewitness testimony confirms the existence of the cyprid El Chupacabra.
Logical Explanation: While the witness may have indeed believed he saw a Chupacabra, it is much more likely that his judgment was influenced by the movie species and he imagined he saw a creature resembling the monster from Species.
Logical Fallacies
The Bandwagon Appeal
In recent years, social media has further influenced the appeal of cryptids as “evidence” is more readily shared and displayed, such as first-hand accounts of “sightings” or blurry pictures taken. Often the sensationalization of cryptozoology on social media leads to the bandwagon appeal.
Cherry-picking
Supporters of cryptozoology tend to focus on evidence and information that supposedly supports their theories, and they often ignore the opposing evidence and information (even though it carries much more weight).
Appeal to Authority
The cryptozoologist community has many self-proclaimed “experts,” who are often people of a non-scientific background or a background in a science that is irrelevant to cryptozoology.
Anecdotal Fallacy
The anecdotal fallacy, or, in other words, testimony over statistics and logic, is maybe the most used fallacy in cryptozoology because of the “sightings” listed as evidence.
Burden of Proof
Rather than providing substantial evidence that can stand alone, cryptozoologists argue their theories are true until proven to be false.