3.1.3 Weak Points and Counterarguments
Argument: There is no absolute evidence that proves cryptids don’t exist.
Rebuttal: This argument administers the “burden of proof” fallacy, where one side (in this case the cryptozoology side) says that it is the responsibility of their opposition to prove why cryptozoology is wrong. On the contrary, it is critical for any scientific argument to provide sufficient evidence that would strongly support its argument. There is more evidence that supports the claim that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience than there is to prove cryptozoology has any scientific sustenance to it
Argument: There are many eyewitness accounts from civilians who have seen a cryptid.
Rebuttal: People “see,” describe, and report the creatures they do because they interpret their recollections, sightings, and encounters within the cultural framework in which they were raised. It is an inevitable consequence of being human that we imagine large, frightening creatures that lurk beneath the surface of the water or human-shaped beasts in forests and other wild places.
Rebuttal: Psychedelics/hallucinogens and other mind-altering substances have been around for millennia and may explain many sightings of cryptids. These substances cause the mind to shift and distort things, or even make up things that aren’t there at all.
Rebuttal: Cryptozoology has a tendency to over-emphasize the value of eyewitness data, and this is one of its primary flaws; anecdotal evidence alone would not be effective in a court of law, and it is also ineffective in scientific inquiry.