Editing Cryptozoology (section)

==Reception and pseudoscience==
There is a broad consensus among academics that cryptozoology is a [[pseudoscience]].<ref name="MULLIS-2021-185b">Mullis (2021: 185): "Eschewing the rigors of science, cryptozoologists publish for a popular audience rather than for experts resulting in the practice itself frequently being derided as a pseudoscience."</ref><ref name="THOMAS-2020-81">Thomas (2020: 81): "Cryptozoology, a pseudoscience originating in the work of Bernard Heuvelmans (1916-2001), is the search for evidence of creatures whose existence remains unproven according to Western scientific standards.</ref><ref name="USCINSKI-2020-38">Uscinski (2020: 38): "Cryptozoology is the pseudoscientific study of animals [...]"</ref><ref name="LACK-ROSSEAU-2016-153-174">Lack & Rosseau (2016: 153–174): "Cryptids are the focus of study in cryptozoology, a field most scientists label as pseudoscientific."</ref><ref name="LOXTON-PROTHERO-2013: 332, 320">Loxton & Prothero (2013: 332): "Whatever the romantic appeal of monster mysteries, cryptozoology as it exists today is unquestionably a pseudoscience." Loxton & Prothero (2013: 320): "Cryptozoology has a reputation of being part of a general pseudoscientific fringe—just one more facet of [[paranormal]] belief." (Both quotes from [[Donald Prothero]])</ref><ref name="CHURCH-2009-251-252">Church (2009: 251–252): "Cryptozoology has acquired a bad reputation as a pseudoscience [...] Until detailed, methodical research becomes standard practice among cryptozoologists, the field will remain disrespected by more traditional biologists and zoologists."</ref><ref name="ROESCH-MOORE-2002-71-78">Roesch & Moore (2002: 71–78): "Pointing to this rampant speculation and ignorance of established scientific theories in cryptozoology, as well as the field's poor record of success and its reliance on unsystematic, anecdotal evidence, many scientists and skeptics classify cryptozoology as a pseudoscience."</ref><ref name="LEE-2000-119">Lee (2000: 119): "Other examples of pseudoscience include cryptozoology, Atlantis, graphology, the lunar effect, and the Bermuda Triangle".</ref> The subculture is regularly criticized for reliance on anecdotal information<ref name="SHERMER-2003">Shermer (2003: 27).</ref> and because in the course of investigating animals that most scientists believe are unlikely to have existed, cryptozoologists do not follow the [[scientific method]].<ref name="DASH-2000">Dash (2000).</ref> No academic course of study nor university degree program grants the status of ''cryptozoologist'' and the subculture is primarily the domain of individuals without training in the natural sciences.<ref name="MULLIS-2021-185c">Mullis (2021: 185): "No university offers a degree in it so the vast majority of cryptozoologists lack any formal academic training in those fields that intersect with their interests, such as zoology, paleontology, or evolutionary biology."</ref><ref name="HILL-2017-66-CRYPTOZOOLOGY-DEGREE">Hill (2017: 66): "there is no academic course of study in cryptozoology or no university degree program that will bestow the title 'cryptozoologist'."</ref><ref name="BARTHOLOMEW-2012-121">Bartholomew (2012: 121): "There are no university degrees for cryptozoology, although a few real scientists from a variety of disciplines dabble in the subject, mostly in the field of zoology and biology. The search for hidden animals lies on the fringe of orthodox science, attracting a large number of amateurs who lack training in the natural sciences."</ref>

Anthropologist Jeb J. Card summarizes cryptozoology in a survey of pseudoscience and [[pseudoarchaeology]]:
{{blockquote|Cryptozoology purports to be the study of previously unidentified animal species. At first glance, this would seem to differ little from zoology. New species are discovered by field and museum zoologists every year. Cryptozoologists cite these discoveries as justification of their search but often minimize or omit the fact that the discoverers do not identify as cryptozoologists and are academically trained zoologists working in an ecological paradigm rather than organizing expeditions to seek out supposed examples of unusual and large creatures.<ref name="CARD-23-32">Card (2016: 23–32).</ref>}}

Card notes that "cryptozoologists often show their disdain and even hatred for professional scientists, including those who enthusiastically participated in cryptozoology", which he traces back to Heuvelmans's early "rage against critics of cryptozoology". He finds parallels with cryptozoology and other pseudosciences, such as [[ghost hunting]] and [[ufology]], and compares the approach of cryptozoologists to colonial big-game hunters, and to aspects of European imperialism. According to Card, "[m]ost [[list of cryptids|cryptids]] are framed as the subject of indigenous legends typically collected in the heyday of [[comparative folklore]], though such legends may be heavily modified or worse. Cryptozoology's complicated mix of sympathy, interest, and appropriation of indigenous culture (or non-indigenous construction of it) is also found in [[New Age]] circles and dubious "[[Indian burial grounds]]" and other [[legend]]s [...] invoked in [[haunting]]s such as the [[The Amityville Horror|"Amityville" hoax]] [...]".<ref name="CARD-24-25">Card (2016: 24–27).</ref>

In a 2011 foreword for ''The American Biology Teacher'', then [[National Association of Biology Teachers]] president [[Dan Ward (educator)|Dan Ward]] uses cryptozoology as an example of "technological pseudoscience" that may confuse students about the scientific method. Ward says that "Cryptozoology [...] is not valid science or even science at all. It is monster hunting."<ref name="WARD-2011-440">Ward (2011: 440).</ref> [[History of science|Historian of science]] [[Brian Regal]] includes an entry for cryptozoology in his ''Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia'' (2009). Regal says that "as an intellectual endeavor, cryptozoology has been studied as much as cryptozoologists have sought hidden animals".<ref name="NAGEL-50">Nagel (2009: 50).</ref>

In a 1992 issue of ''[[The Folklore Society|Folklore]]'', [[folkloristics|folklorist]] Véronique Campion-Vincent says:
{{blockquote|Unexplained appearances of mystery animals are reported all over the world today. Beliefs in the existence of fabulous and supernatural animals are ubiquitous and timeless. In the continents discovered by Europe indigenous beliefs and tales have strongly influenced the perceptions of the conquered confronted by a new natural environment. In parallel with the growing importance of the scientific approach, these traditional mythical tales have been endowed with sometimes highly artificial precision and have given birth to contemporary legends solidly entrenched in their territories. The belief self-perpetuates today through multiple observations enhanced by the media and encouraged (largely with the aim of gain for touristic promotion) by the local population, often genuinely convinced of the reality of this profitable phenomenon."<ref name="CAMPION-VINCENT-173">Campion-Vincent (1992: 160–183).</ref>}}

Campion-Vincent says that "four currents can be distinguished in the study of mysterious animal appearances": "Forteans" ("compiler[s] of anomalies" such as via publications like the ''[[Fortean Times]]''), "occultists" (which she describes as related to "Forteans"), "folklorists", and "cryptozoologists". Regarding cryptozoologists, Campion-Vincent says that "this movement seems to deserve the appellation of parascience, like [[parapsychology]]: the same corpus is reviewed; many scientists participate, but for those who have an official status of university professor or researcher, the participation is a private hobby".<ref name="CAMPION-VINCENT-173"/>

In her ''Encyclopedia of American Folklore'', academic [[Linda Watts]] says that "folklore concerning unreal animals or beings, sometimes called monsters, is a popular field of inquiry" and describes cryptozoology as an example of "American narrative traditions" that "feature many monsters".<ref name="WATTS-271">Watts (2007: 271).</ref>

In his analysis of cryptozoology, folklorist [[Peter Dendle]] says that "cryptozoology devotees consciously position themselves in defiance of mainstream science" and that:
{{blockquote|The psychological significance of cryptozoology in the modern world [...] serves to channel guilt over the decimation of species and destruction of the natural habitat; to recapture a sense of mysticism and danger in a world now perceived as fully charted and over-explored; and to articulate resentment of and defiance against a scientific community perceived as monopolising the pool of culturally acceptable beliefs.<ref name="DENDLE-2006-190-206">Dendle (2006: 190–206).</ref>}}

In a paper published in 2013, Dendle refers to cryptozoologists as "contemporary monster hunters" that "keep alive a sense of wonder in a world that has been very thoroughly charted, mapped, and tracked, and that is largely available for close scrutiny on Google Earth and satellite imaging" and that "on the whole the devotion of substantial resources for this pursuit betrays a lack of awareness of the basis for scholarly consensus (largely ignoring, for instance, evidence of evolutionary biology and the fossil record)."<ref name="DENDLE-2013-439">Dendle (2013: 439).</ref>

According to historian [[Mike Dash]], few scientists doubt there are thousands of unknown animals, particularly invertebrates, awaiting discovery; however, cryptozoologists are largely uninterested in researching and cataloging newly discovered species of [[ant]]s or [[beetle]]s, instead focusing their efforts towards "more elusive" creatures that have often defied decades of work aimed at confirming their existence.<ref name="DASH-2000"/>

Paleontologist [[George Gaylord Simpson]] (1984) lists cryptozoology among examples of human gullibility, along with [[creationism]]:
{{blockquote|Humans are the most inventive, deceptive, and gullible of all animals. Only those characteristics can explain the belief of some humans in creationism, in the arrival of UFOs with extraterrestrial beings, or in some aspects of cryptozoology. [...] In several respects the discussion and practice of cryptozoology sometimes, although not invariably, has demonstrated both deception and gullibility. An example seems to merit the old Latin saying 'I believe because it is incredible,' although Tertullian, its author, applied it in a way more applicable to the present day creationists.<ref name="SIMPSON-1984-1-16">Simpson (1984: 1–19).</ref>}}

Paleontologist Donald Prothero (2007) cites cryptozoology as an example of pseudoscience and categorizes it, along with [[Holocaust denial]] and [[Ufology#Pseudoscience|UFO abductions claims]], as aspects of American culture that are "clearly baloney".<ref name="PROTHERO-2007">Prothero (2007: 13–15).</ref>

In ''Scientifical Americans: The Culture of Amateur Paranormal Researchers'' (2017), Hill surveys the field and discusses aspects of the subculture, noting internal attempts at creating more scientific approaches and the involvement of [[Young Earth creationists]] and a prevalence of hoaxes. She concludes that many cryptozoologists are "passionate and sincere in their belief that mystery animals exist. As such, they give deference to every report of a sighting, often without critical questioning. As with the [[Ghost hunting|ghost seekers]], cryptozoologists are convinced that they will be the ones to solve the mystery and make history. With the lure of mystery and money undermining diligent and ethical research, the field of cryptozoology has serious credibility problems."<ref name="SCIENTIFICAL-AMERICANS-56-68">Hill (2017: 56–69).</ref>