Is Cryptozoology a Science?

Apparently, one of Loren's blog postings on this question over at Cryptomundo instigated replies on other blogs, with some paranormalists claiming that "No, cryptozoology is not a science." Now, my problem with this is two-fold; first, the latter argument appears (from reading the blogs in question) to be based on faulty logic and irrelevant suppositions with little understanding of what, exactly, makes up a branch of science, and no apparent knowledge of the history of science (and the lengthy periods of development through which many current branches of science had to struggle for legitimacy). A convincing argument could probably be made that cryptozoology is not a science, but these arguments were not.

But that really isn't worth examining at this point, because the question itself is framed incorrectly. The question should not be, is cryptozoology a science, but is cryptozoology scientific?

Why? Because, as I've pointed out (in detail) in Cryptozoology: Science & Speculation, cryptozoology is primarily a methodology, and focuses on discovery science, not empirical science. (In some aspects, cryptozoology may also incorporate hypothetico-deductive science, which of course is prevalent throughout modern biology. All forms of scientific reasoning have their positive and negative characteristics, but that, too, is well beyond the scope of this note.) The point with empiricism, or experimental science, is that knowledge (results) should be verifiable and repeatable. Obviously, that isn't always possible with cryptozoology. In most cases, once a specimen of a mystery animal is located and the species described, it becomes verifiable, but at the same time ceases to be cryptozoological.

So, why is cryptozoology scientific? (And, for this, I recognize that cryptozoology can be, and often has been, used incorrectly; but, it does not logically follow that cryptozoology is inherently unscientific.)

1. Zoological discovery utilizes several different methodologies. Cryptozoology is the targeted-search methodology for ethnoknown animals. We have seen multiple examples of this targeted-search methodology occur over within mainstream zoology, with ethnoknown creatures for which only circumstantial evidence was known being sought and eventually discovered and described. The multiple (and ongoing) successes of Dutch zoologist Marc van Roosmalen, working with Brazilian indigenous peoples to locate new species is just one example.

2. Any generalized scientific methodology involves a) gathering data, observations and measurements, whether raw or developed (such as detecting and distinguishing patterns for investigation), b) developing, through various means, hypothetical explanations for the observations in question, c) determine, rationally, what a given hypothesis predicts, and d) devising a means of testing that hypothesis. In cryptozoology, the methodology is fairly straightforward: a) collect observations, sighting reports, and other ethnozoological data that suggests the presence of an unrecognized species. In some cases, the observations may be readily apparent, while others may require "pattern recognition," due to culture-driven folkloric guises. These observations directly lead to the identification of target ethnoknowns, or cryptids. b) Develop hypothetical explanations for a given cryptid, which may include an unknown species, known species, folkloric exaggeration, natural phenomena, etc. c) Develop and deduce from an explanation what we would predict (looking at the entire body of observations) if that explanation truly was correct. d) Develop a means of determining whether the explanation is correct. Now, this latter stage is far more difficult to implement than the others, which is why there is a preponderance of identified cryptids and only a relative handful of cases that have been adequately solved. There is an unfortunate tendency among some individuals to criticize cryptozoology on this point and then claim that the critique is based on science, when it is little more than emotionalism.

Unfortunately, so long as some researchers resort to belief-driven investigatory practices (whether paranormalism, skepticism, or other), cryptozoology will continue to be questioned as a scientific methodology. I suspect, however, that it will eventually dawn on mainstream zoologists that targeting ethnoknown animals for discovery science has great potential for conservation efforts, which will be the tipping point for mainstream recognition of cryptozoology as a methodology. (I don't think it will necessarily influence acceptance of well-known cryptids like Bigfoot and sea serpents as legitimate targets for scientific pursuit, but that's another issue altogether.)