Cryptozoology and Arguing from Silence
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
This article was inspired while I was writing an introduction to a post about wolverines. At first, it was going to be a part of the introduction, but it needed its own place. It is expanded from that intended introduction.
Wolverines are known to mostly live in the far north, but a few live further south. Captain Meriwether Lewis saw on in 1806 and referred to it as a "tyger cat," as it was unknown to white folks. Indeed, when the first specimen of a platypus was sent from 'Straya to England, the recipients thought it was a prank.
 |
| Public domain image from the National Park Service, modified at FotoSketcher |
The thylacine or Tasmanian tiger was declared extinct in 1936, but there have been reports of sightings over the years — and even in 2019. A critter known as the thylacoleo (very similar spelling to the previous animal) was a carnivorous marsupial lion. Sightings for that have also been given. (And you thought the Drop Bear, Thylarctos plummetus, was bad. Good thing that last one is fun and games.) People make reports, shoot kinda-sorta-type videos — but nothing concrete is found.
To go for some big news, let's consider dinosaurs. We know they existed from fossils and (despite evolutionary propaganda) eyewitness accounts. There have been expeditions to remote areas to verify reports of dinosaurs living today, but those came up empty. (Sure would be great for biblical creation science but awful news for secularists than the findings of dinosaur soft tissues.) Some creationists endorse cryptozoology (here, for example) and want to find some dinosaurs, others say they're probably taking dirt naps and we have better things to do.
Let's move on into more familiar unknowns and what is commonly considered cryptozoology. What we discussed before, aside from the hoax, are creatures that are known to have existed. Some disappeared for a while, pulled up stakes, and a few are thought to be extinct — then again, maybe not. Consider modern monsters.
 |
| Bigfoot, Pixabay / Ryan McGuire |
To dismiss these things because they have not been verified by credible scientists (define "credible") is an argument from silence. I'll allow that some evidence is hooey. Also interesting is that Skamania County, Washington, has an ordinance against killing Bigfoot. To claim that this indicates they know it's real is fallacious. Was it made to be a joke? Possibly. Practical considerations for it are that someone could shoot a person by mistake, and that if Bigfoot is indeed real, someone could be killing an endangered species.
An interesting program on the History Channel titled Monsterquest (available on Hulu, Freevee, and YouTube) shows how people are investigating sightings of various oddities. Yes, they cover Bigfoot as expected. Other things are explored in the sea and on land. They seem to be fair about the coverage, not sensationalistic, showing dismissals and raising questions of facts that may not be easily explained away.
This show and other intelligent materials on these subjects can get people thinking. There are accounts of Sasquatch/Bigfoot/Yeti and more from many places. It is unreasonable to dismiss them all on the grounds of hoaxes or illusions, since there is evidence of...something...in many. Also to take into consideration that so many sightings happen in the American Northwest, which has a great deal of wilderness. Every parcel of land there and other areas of sightings have not been fully explored, nor are they patrolled.
As for me, I'm not making a case that creatures exist. Cryptozoology may be a frustrating but worthwhile pursuit, but it does not exactly receive lotsa grotzits in government funding. Some of these things may exist, but we'll have to wait and see. F'rinstance, Bigfoot may exist and be some sort of ape. You savvy that, pilgrim?
The video embedded below can also give us things to think about. Ask yourself if any are compelling, believable, why or why not.
Comments