Jun 17


It seems as though skepticism and cryptozoology are complete opposites but what if they are actually the same!

Well to make such a point I will find the defintions of both sides.

According to Google the definition of cryptozoology is:

Whilst the definition of skepticism is:

It still seems like they are opposite right? Well my thought is that they go hand in hand.

Seeing that on the subject of cryptozoology, skeptics are trying to disprove evidence provided by researchers while reserachers try to provide evidence that cannot be disproved.

Well understanding that point, let’s say everyone belived in cryptids and there were no skeptics on the subject. Someone may see something in the dark and not know what it is, so they snap a blurry photo of it and label it as a chupacabra but in reality it was a raccoon. Everyone would think it is a chupacabra rather than a raccoon which it really was, which would be a misconception. 

My point is that we cannot say that everytime a tree falls over it was pushed by a sasquatch, and whenever a bat flies over head twas a mothman.

 Because it seems like whenever a cryptozoologist finds anything that could even remotely possibly evidence they say with absolute certainty that it is a form of cryptid. For example, a researcher may find a track and call it a sasquatch footprint, upon further analysis a skeptic would declare it a bear track which it happened to be. Or someone finds their chicken coop massacred and fur nearby and claim it a chupacabra’s doing, when as it turns out it was really a fox.

I’m not at all saying that all cryptid evidence has an alternative truth 😊, but there is some that aren’t what is alleged.

If there a actually sasquatches in a forest and nearby residents have seen it and a researcher goes looking for it he may find a bear track (in an area bears live) and search there, when sasquatches live elsewhere on the same mountain but avoid bear territory for less hunting competition with bears. Using this example it depicts that if a researcher assumes that inaccurate evidece is legit they would be mislead in further study. Whereas if a skeptic showed the researcher that it really was a bear, it would actually help said researcher make more accurate discoveries in the future using knowledge to make more concrete assumptions later.

If more skeptics became researchers also and more researchers were skeptics as well it would seem that most evidence provided in the future would have already went through a post production analysis before release means that in turn evidence that was posted afterwards would be closer to concrete than any evidence we are presented now.

So after all given circumstances I would say that I think skeptism should not be taken as proof of non-existence but rather it is actually a valuable, even crucial, asset to, and of, cryptozoology, both sides proving what is and what is not the absolute truth, which is the ultimate goal we seek.

1 comment

  1. Ben

    Very good point. I agree science should always be practiced with an open mind and people who believe one way or another should look at all the available data with an open mind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>