3.1.4 Research Paper

Introduction 

Many people consider cryptozoology to be a pseudoscience, as it is neither considered a real branch of zoology nor does it follow the scientific method. It is a group of theories about unknown, legendary, or extinct animals whose existence is not supported by empirical evidence. Cryptozoology was originally founded in 1950 by zoologists Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan T. Sanderson, who are now known as the “Fathers of Cryptozoology.” In 1982 the International Society of Cryptozoology (ISC) was founded in Washington, DC. The first ISC meeting took place at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History with the Department of Vertebrate Zoology. It published a peer-reviewed journal called Cryptozoology: The Interdisciplinary Journal of the International Society of Cryptozoology. This journal presented the ideas of cryptozoology as a subunit of both zoology and biology. This yearly journal and the ISC as a whole were discontinued in 1998 as cryptids were seen more as a pseudoscience in the scientific community although they remained generally popular by public opinion (Rossi, 2016, pgs. 573-575). Overall, cryptozoology is mainly supported by firsthand accounts, but there is no physical evidence to support these accounts.

Cryptozoology heavily relies on testimonies as evidence which in many professional, critical cases, is considered an unreliable source of information and evidence. Many of these supposed sightings are either disproven or later revoked as a hoax. Cryptids are not real animals, based on the standard of what makes a creature an animal, but rather, cryptids are fictional creatures whose stories have been passed through folklore and legends. Real animals leave behind physical evidence, as there is a specific DNA sequence associated with each species and usually a subsequent record of this unique DNA sequence. Additionally, evidence such as skins or pelts, fecal matter, and other physical evidence are key factors in the classification of real animals, but cryptids have none of these. Despite the cryptozoology community’s attempts at creating a subbranch of zoology, there is no substantial physical evidence that is necessary for cryptozoology to be considered a real branch of science; therefore, cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. Three cryptids that exemplify the reasons cryptozoology is a pseudoscience are the Loch Ness Monster, El Chupacabra, and Bigfoot.

Loch Ness Monster 

One of the more well-known examples of a cryptid is the Loch Ness Monster. Although there have been many accounts from eyewitnesses claiming to have seen the Loch Ness Monster, there is not enough evidence to prove its existence. The first account of the Loch Ness Monster was on August 22, 564 CE by Saint Columba in Scotland (National Geographic, 2020). With that being said, there has been much debate among some historians on the accuracy of the date on which this eyewitness account took place. Furthermore, no other evidence has come up to prove anything from this encounter other than the testimony of Columba. If, theoretically, the Loch Ness Monster was real and Columba really did see it some thousands of years ago, then its body would have begun deteriorating slowly until it eventually would have died and left some sort of skeletal evidence to be found. Unfortunately, this was not the case, as no such skeletal remains were discovered that could explain the existence of such a creature.

While it is certainly possible that the skeletal remains are still out there somewhere, waiting to be found, other evidence indicates that no amount of searching could unearth the remains for Nessie (a common nickname for the Loch Ness Monster). For instance, an analysis of the DNA in Loch Ness Lake, Nessie’s alleged residence, done a few years ago revealed no unknown DNA sequence. On the contrary, the DNA evidence that was found was actually the DNA from giant eels that reside within the lake. As explained by the researchers, “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. This might explain why some eye-witness have claimed to see what they believe to be the Loch Ness Monster, when in fact, they saw a giant eel on the water’s surface.

Likely the most famous “proof” of the Loch Ness Monster was a photo taken in 1934 by English physician Robert Kenneth Wilson called “the surgeon’s photograph.” In this photo, there appeared to be the sloping neck of a brachiosaurus-like creature swimming in the water.  Later on, it was confirmed that the silhouette picture of Nessie was just a hoax (Tikkanen, 2020). While eyewitness accounts and photographs may seem real at first glance, under a critical thinking lens, most of the accounts are debunked. Simply put, the physical evidence needed to support this cryptid’s existence has yet to be found. Without the necessary evidence, the Loch Ness Monster has no place in the scientific world, and it must be categorized as pseudoscientific, furthering the argument that cryptozoology as a whole is a pseudoscience.

El Chupacabra 

El Chupacabra is a cryptid that is theorized to be primarily located in South America where it mainly prays on farmers’ livestock. The descriptions of the Latin legend El Chupacabra can actually be explained by a disease present in mainly coyotes and raccoons. This disease is caused by mites and is called mange, also known as scabies. Its effects include hair loss and severe rashes that can 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. All of these unique features that come from mange align with the trademark looks of El Chupacabra, which are 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 it 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.).

The first account of El Chupacabra was in Puerto Rico in 1995. The witness claimed to have seen a creature that had two legs and spikes on its back (Boutland, 2018, p. 9). Maybe not so coincidentally, in the same year, a movie called Species was released. This movie featured a monster to which the Chupacabra held a “strong resemblance to the alien-human hybrid creature.” The witness confessed to watching the movie prior to the claimed sighting (Seigel, 2020). Even though the sighting was widely refuted, the report fueled other proclaimed sightings from people who also said they had seen the Chupacabra (Boutland, 2018, p. 10). Not surprisingly, their reports also matched the creature from the movie Species. Most likely, all of these reports were just influenced by the movie, as it was recent in the minds of the eye-witnesses. This goes to show how the Chupacabra originated from the imagination of a farmer who had recently seen the thriller Species and happened to spot what was likely an animal with mange.

When left with uncertainty, the human brain likes to try and find answers, even when there might not be an answer. As one author puts it, “Science does not have answers to everything, not even in issues that clearly belong to its domain. This should be clearly recognized since an honest defense of science must refer to what it can really do, not to some idealized version of science that has answers to all questions” (Hansson, 2017, p. 5). When people are left with uncertainty, our brains are programmed to find patterns and answers. When people come across things that are unfamiliar to them–and possibly even frightful–our brains try to find the reason behind whatever it is that is so confusing or unfamiliar. Sometimes this means that people jump to the conclusion that they have spotted a cryptid in order to ease the uncertainty in their brains, despite the lack of physical evidence that might indicate the answer is something more natural. The truth of the matter is that with the lack of evidence there is for the existence of these cryptids, scientists must conclude that they do not exist.

Bigfoot 

Bigfoot is another cryptid that many people know about and have heard stories about. Bigfoot is in fact, a trademark cryptid in the Americas that is referenced as a cross between an ape and a human with an immense amount of fur that is rumored to inhabit the woods of North America. This cryptid goes by many names, another common name being Sasquatch. There are numerous documented reports of Bigfoot sightings, and there are still alleged sightings being reported today. Regardless of all these supposed sightings, however, there is still not enough evidence to show that the creature Bigfoot really exists (Cressey, 2013). One instance of a Bigfoot sighting involves a woman reportedly seeing an 8ft tall mysterious creature directly after she had left the gym. She described this creature as, “… seven or eight feet tall and covered in gray fur, racing back into the woods about 30 yards away” (Hunnell, 2021). With only an eyewitness account, and a lack of any solid evidence, instances such as this one do not automatically support the creature’s existence. Psychedelics and hallucinogens have been around for centuries and could be one explanation as to why people have seen cryptids such as Bigfoot. These substances cause the mind to shift and distort things; or even make up things that aren’t there at all.

Bigfoot through a historical lens is largely passed down through folklore from vague first-hand accounts of supposed sightings. These accounts, rumors, and stories are passed down from generation to generation, keeping the stories of Bigfoot alive. When these stories have been passed down from generation to generation, there’s a sort of egocentrism that prevents people from standing down from their beliefs no matter the evidence, or lack thereof, presented to them. As one author puts it, “Egocentrism interferes with critical thinking on all levels, from the deepest to the most superficial. It stands in the way of the empathy that is such an important part of critical thinking” (Nosich, 2012). In other words, a person might be so narrowly centered on their own perspective and environment that these stories that are ingrained in either their ethnic or home culture have an element of egocentrism that makes it harder for this person to be convinced there isn’t at least some element of truth to them.

The biggest piece of proclaimed evidence many Bigfoot supporters are known to argue with is the discovery of uncannily big footprints found in 1987. Supporters claim that these footprints can only be explained by the existence of Bigfoot (thus the name). A popular article from the same year in the magazine Newsweek told the story of “four sets of footprints” found that showed “dermal ridges, the foot’s equivalent of fingerprints.” The article indicated that these footprints could only be caused by Bigfoot, as the “experts” cited in the article claimed “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 credibility necessary to discuss or comment on these discoveries. In fact, these footprints were later discovered to have likely been made by an impression cast. These examples just show that while there may be “evidence” of Bigfoot, it is either unreliable, not credible, or proven to be a hoax.

Bigfoot, a cryptozoology creature, 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 no truly convicting evidence (Hansson, 2017). All of these factors combined make it undeniable that the cryptid Bigfoot is pseudoscientific.

Conclusion

Based on Hansson’s criteria, Cryptozoology, which includes the Loch Ness Monster, El Chupacabra, and Bigfoot, should be considered a pseudoscience. There is not enough valid evidence or empirical evidence to show that any of these cryptids are in fact real. Any evidence or sightings used by Cryptozoologists are either not credible or later falsified. Superstition is nothing new. And, as previously stated, the human brain tries to solve any puzzles that are presented to it, but that does not mean that the correct conclusion is drawn every time. In fact, all too frequently the human brain deceives itself into believing something that does not make logical sense. Eye-witness claims are the main type of evidence given for Cryptozoology, but when the human brain easily deceives itself, this cannot be considered a credible source of evidence, especially from a critical-thinking point of view. This is why the scientific community asks for more convincing evidence than testimonies: there has to be physical evidence. Other than some hoaxes spotted throughout cryptozoology’s history, there does not seem to be any physical evidence available to prove—or even infer—the existence of cryptids such as the Loch Ness Monster, El Chupacabra, and Bigfoot. Because these cryptids are presented to the general public as if they were real, regardless of their lacking the necessary evidence, the logical conclusion is that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience.

References