Search This Blog




Total Pageviews

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Why Science Won't Take Cryptozoology Seriously

I ran across this while reading Bernard Heuvelmans' book Neanderthal: The Strange Saga of the Minnesota Iceman. It is in a chapter where Heuvelmans is pondering why no one in the scientific community would take the subject of the Iceman seriously and study it while it was possible.

"The Fear of the Unknown is overcome only by experience. Once something has been examined, analyzed, tested, and thus known, it is possible to face it. It may still inspire mistrust or provoke flight, but it can no longer cause on uncontrollable terror. That also applies to the Horror Of Novelty; experience teaches us that something new is often better than something old and thus preferable. So, Science, even in its most modest form, is the best possible tool for facing the unforeseen dangers of the Unknown, and of the New, which is after all only the Unknown in time. It is so obvious: to adapt to the inconveniences of the unknown, one should try to know it! That is the role of Science! There is irony in the idea that emotionally based incredulity should play a role in scientific enquiry. To do so would have Science denying its own foundation. Isn't it by definition the exploration of the unknown? If it abandons that role, it has no reason to exist."

This is all very true. People are scared of the unknown, and that's why most people, including mostly all scientists, won't look into subjects like Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, other unknown animals, UFOs, etc. They all say that Bigfoot can't possibly be real because the history books from 200 years ago say that things like it don't exist.

But, if you are someone who is interested in cryptozoology, you'd notice that the few scientists who have looked into the Sasquatch mystery (Grover Krantz, Jeff Meldrum, and Heuvelmans, for example), have become convinced that there is something out there, because they have looked at the evidence that has been left behind. If Bigfoot was not real, there would be no evidence left behind.

If the rest of science would do this with Bigfoot and other cryptids, we could probably solve some of these mysteries much faster.

Bernard Heuvelmans (1916-2001),
the Father of Cryptozoology,
a scientist who wasn't afraid to explore the unknown


  1. Well, you also have to consider, that they see shows like Mountain Monsters or Ancient Aliens and assume everyone in the field is like that. There are also a lot of people involved with the field who are very blatently anti-science or use nonscientific methods or are nonprofessional. It is hard because people involved in the field are generally very professional and scientific but the few who are not, ruin the perception for everyone.

    1. Yes, that's all very true also. I wish they would look past things like that and see that most researchers aren't people who will say that everything they see is evidence of Bigfoot or aliens... Because, like you said, most researchers aren't like that.
      I also find it horrible that lots and lots of people actually think all the shows like Mountain Monsters are real. (I met someone at the Oho Bigfoot Conference who was certain that the Rogue Team was the government after them!) Now, I love watching that show, but I really don't know what to say if someone thinks it's real. It's entertainment only. And, while its gotten more people interested in Bigfoot, it does not show real research, and hurts the community at the same time.

    2. Very true, the only show that I have seen that actually gives a true portrayal of the community and the research is Monster Quest. Since that went off the air, everything has been downhill. Destination Truth wasn't terrible either