3.1.2 SEE-I Model

State

There is no documented authentic evidence supporting the existence of cryptids; therefore, cryptozoology is a form of pseudoscience that best fits Hansson’s criteria for pseudo-theory promotion.

Elaborate

When considering if cryptozoology might be a pseudoscience, two strong indicators for this case are that it is not considered a branch of zoology nor does it follow the scientific method. By most zoologists, cryptozoology is considered the fabricated study of unknown, legendary, or extinct animals whose existence is not supported by empirical evidence. The only documented evidence has either been identified as a hoax or is anecdotal: proclaimed sightings by unreliable sources and cases of mistaken identities. Cryptids are not real animals, but rather made-up creatures whose stories have been passed through the generations. Real animals leave behind physical evidence as there are specific DNA sequences associated with each species. Additionally, other physical evidence such as hides or kills, fecal matter (scats), and clear photographic evidence are key factors in the classification of real animals. Cryptids, on the other hand, do not provide any of this substantial physical evidence to any degree.

Exemplify

• Loch Ness Monster: The Loch Ness Monster is one example of a cryptid whose existence lacks reliable evidence. This creature is described as a sea animal that originally was said to have lived in Loch Ness, Scotland. There have been several incidents where evidence has been brought up that supposedly proves the existence of this creature, but was eventually falsified after further examination. A DNA analysis was done on Loch Ness Lake where this monster was proclaimed to be located. The DNA was found to be that of giant eels: “Juvenile eels, known as elvers, arrive in Scottish rivers and lochs after migrating more than 3,100 miles (5,000 km) from the Sargasso Sea near the Bahamas, where the animals spawn and lay eggs” (BBC News, 2019). This DNA analysis proves these giant eels are what actually reside in this lake, not in fact the Loch Ness Monster. Eye witness accounts of this cryptid could possibly be the mistake of an eel for the Loch Ness Monster. In addition to this, an easy way to be deceived by the supposed “evidence” for the Loch Ness Monster is through manipulated photographs, videos, or other media. The most famous picture of this cryptid, known as the “surgeon’s photo,” was later shown to be a hoax, which is all too easy to pull off in the age of Photoshop and other photo-editing software (Tikkanen, 2020). The Loch Ness Monster, inside the umbrella of cryptozoology, fits the criteria of pseudoscience as defined by Hansson because 1) it involves the broad spectrum of science and scientific research, 2) it offers no reliable evidence or trusted sources, and 3) multiple sources and researchers try and persuade the public eye that the Loch Ness Monster is indeed real and has reliable evidence supporting it even though there is not (Hansson, 2017).
• El Chupacabra: The cryptid El Chupacabra originated in Puerto Rico after its first fight with a farmer who claimed the beast has sucked the blood from his goats, leaving uneaten carcasses. The farmer’s description of the cryptid after he saw it in 1995 had some remarkable similarities to the alien featured in the movie Species which was released the same year. The cryptid El Chupacabra’s description can also be explained by a disease present in coyotes and raccoons. This disease is caused by mites and is called mange, also known as scabies. Its effects include hair loss and rashes that cause disfiguring. There is also a loss of appetite which further disfigures the features as the bones are more defined. The only remaining hair is on the back by the neck and this accounts for the trademark look of El Chupacabra, which has little to no hair, disfigured bones, and a mane-type look on the back of their body. As this is a debilitating disease, the animal is forced to look for easier prey which is often livestock. The infection also causes them to be less mentally stable which can account for the irregular movements and some attacks on humans (Tomecek et al., n.d.). El Chupacabra, also included in cryptozoology, fits the criteria of pseudoscience as defined by Hansson because: 1) it involves the broad spectrum of science and scientific research, 2) it offers no reliable evidence or trusted sources, and 3) multiple sources and researchers try and persuade the public eye that El Chupacabra is indeed real and has reliable evidence supporting it even though there is not (Hansson, 2017).
• Bigfoot: Bigfoot is a trademark cryptid in the Americas that is referenced as a cross between an ape and a human with immense fur who is said to inhabit the woods of North America. This cryptid is also known as Sasquatch. The biggest piece of proclaimed evidence many Bigfoot supporters cite is the discovery of unusually big footprints by a mysterious creature. They claim that these supposed footprints can only be explained by the existence of Bigfoot. A popular article in Newsweek in the 1980s covered this story as “four sets of footprints” that were found that showed “dermal ridges, the foot’s equivalent of fingerprints.” It was agreed that these footprints were only caused by Bigfoot as the “experts” proclaimed “it would be impossible to fake prints with dermal ridges,” and the footprints were over 15 inches and showed “detailed microscopic anatomy that was absolutely perfect” (Dennett, 1989, p. 264). This evidence was later highly discredited as the “experts” were proven to have no degree or reliable credibility to discuss or comment on these discoveries, and that these footprints were in fact likely made by an impression cast. Bigfoot, a cryptid, fits the criteria of pseudoscience as defined by Hansson because 1) it involves the broad spectrum of science and scientific research, 2) it offers no reliable evidence or trusted sources,  and 3) multiple sources and researchers try and persuade the public eye that the Bigfoot is indeed real and has reliable evidence supporting it even though there is not (Hansson, 2017).

Illustrate

Almost every child has at least heard of Santa Claus, the mythical man who delivers gifts on Christmas Eve. Anyone who has heard of him knows at least a couple of basic facts: He brings toys to all the good children around the world, he wears a red coat and has a white beard, he loves cookies, and he is from the North Pole. Is it logical to think that one man travels the world and brings toys to all in one night? While the existence of Santa Claus is obviously irrational, family traditions keep the idea of Santa alive, causing people of all backgrounds to have the same or similar knowledge and beliefs about him, even though Santa Claus is not truly real. This similarly keeps the allure and beliefs of cryptozoology alive as the magic one feels when hearing these stories about mythical creatures is just like stories of Santa. These stories may feel real, but the feeling is not physical evidence. Furthermore, we may want them to be real, but that is just wishful thinking. This is why cryptozoology is a pseudoscience: because there is no physical evidence to support the claims, and theories surrounding cryptids do not follow the scientific method, which makes them pseudo-theories (Hansson).