hitchhikingfrog

Howdy, the first half-dozen or so of my posts act as mirrors for Reddit posts and adhere largely to that style, just modifying the contents of these posts slightly, I will eventually come back and amend these when I decide on a cohesive format for my posting. This post combines two different, informal pieces I wrote in one accessible place for convenience.  In my opinion, cryptozoological discourse has become increasingly redundant and paltry over the last decade. There are a variety of factors at play, however one of the least-acknowledged but most crucial is cryptozoology’s general refusal to concede - we preserve our monsters at the cost of progression. The constant discussions on the possibility of Bigfoot and Nessie are the clearest example. I am not the first to point this out, but I’ve seen very few in this sub speak about it. Cryptozoology needs critical discussions of this sort if it ever wants to obtain academic legitimacy, so let’s have ...

Howdy, the first half-dozen or so of my posts act as mirrors for Reddit posts and adhere largely to that style, just modifying the contents of these posts slightly, I will eventually come back and amend these when I decide on a cohesive format for my posting. This post combines two different, informal pieces I wrote in one accessible place for convenience.  As per Wikipedia, some general-audience books on science, the occasional academic interviewed for a bigfoot news story, and many people in this sub, cryptozoology is a pseudoscience. But is it really? What does this label mean, what does it imply, is it accurate? I don’t think so, I think the label is applied without adequate nuance. I’ve written this post to share some scattered thoughts (this is not a complete, cohesive argument) in the hopes of starting some discourse. I believe that cryptozoology is not an inherent pseudoscience, but is instead a practiced one. There are pseudoscientific individua...