The Introduction of Cryptozoology as an Academic Science
Dr. Ernest Nescius, Deputy Secretary of the Government Funding Commission,
I am sending this letter in regards to your recent decision about the proposition to introduce cryptozoology in universities across Canada. I am writing to state my disagreement and concern with introducing cryptozoology as a scientific study in the Academy. The reasoning behind my disagreement with your proposition is because of the importance of distinguishing science from non-science, as well as the problems with anecdotal evidence on cryptozoology, and finally, the nonsensical expenditure of government funds on non-scientific research.
In order to distinguish the division of science and non-science, one …show more content…
This means that if cryptozoology is an accepted empirical science, we should be able to find and look at everything that cryptozoology encompasses, as well as formulate hypotheses that encourage further investigation into cryptids. The study of zoology, which is in fact scientific, studies primary components such as biology, physiology, anatomy, and evolutionary histories of living animals. Due to the fact that cryptids are not readily available for scientific study, cryptozoology cannot be accepted as empirical science. We are currently unable to study the biology, physiology, anatomy, nor evolutionary histories of cryptids because we do not have an extensive fossil collection or adequate information about their anatomical functions. Furthermore, the statement that “cryptozoology relies on anecdotal evidence for the existence of these creatures, as well as their presence in countless cultures’ mythologies” does not comply with the current investigations, or the scientific method, of science. Anecdotal evidence is comparable to …show more content…
The pseudoscience of cryptozoology violates the criterion of the third law of scientific change, because, quite simply, it is not empirical science. The current accepted method in science is the hypothetico-deductive (HD) method, which as stated above, describes the outline of the scientific method by observation and experimentation. Thus, as cryptozoology does not explain any facts that are in accordance with the HD scientific method, it cannot be accepted as science. Additionally, simply due to the lack of tangible evidence, there is nothing that can be studied according to the method. Exceptional research - that is scientific research that is factual, testifiable, and measurable research, is the foundation of the acceptable method today. Therefore, currently there is not enough acceptable evidence to sanction University-level research of cryptids, not the study of
Dr. Ernest Nescius, Deputy Secretary of the Government Funding Commission,
I am sending this letter in regards to your recent decision about the proposition to introduce cryptozoology in universities across Canada. I am writing to state my disagreement and concern with introducing cryptozoology as a scientific study in the Academy. The reasoning behind my disagreement with your proposition is because of the importance of distinguishing science from non-science, as well as the problems with anecdotal evidence on cryptozoology, and finally, the nonsensical expenditure of government funds on non-scientific research.
In order to distinguish the division of science and non-science, one …show more content…
This means that if cryptozoology is an accepted empirical science, we should be able to find and look at everything that cryptozoology encompasses, as well as formulate hypotheses that encourage further investigation into cryptids. The study of zoology, which is in fact scientific, studies primary components such as biology, physiology, anatomy, and evolutionary histories of living animals. Due to the fact that cryptids are not readily available for scientific study, cryptozoology cannot be accepted as empirical science. We are currently unable to study the biology, physiology, anatomy, nor evolutionary histories of cryptids because we do not have an extensive fossil collection or adequate information about their anatomical functions. Furthermore, the statement that “cryptozoology relies on anecdotal evidence for the existence of these creatures, as well as their presence in countless cultures’ mythologies” does not comply with the current investigations, or the scientific method, of science. Anecdotal evidence is comparable to …show more content…
The pseudoscience of cryptozoology violates the criterion of the third law of scientific change, because, quite simply, it is not empirical science. The current accepted method in science is the hypothetico-deductive (HD) method, which as stated above, describes the outline of the scientific method by observation and experimentation. Thus, as cryptozoology does not explain any facts that are in accordance with the HD scientific method, it cannot be accepted as science. Additionally, simply due to the lack of tangible evidence, there is nothing that can be studied according to the method. Exceptional research - that is scientific research that is factual, testifiable, and measurable research, is the foundation of the acceptable method today. Therefore, currently there is not enough acceptable evidence to sanction University-level research of cryptids, not the study of