In e-Skeptic this week, an article on the lake monster "Champ" which will forever be remembered for a really painful title: "
Weak are the Champ Puns." (And as a name, Champ is better than, say, Ogopogo.) The subject is Robert E. Bartholomew's book on the subject, a generally good effort which put the lake monster in context, not so much going deep into zoology as into such topics as the fracture lines within cryptozoology and the history of the Mansi photograph (which I think is a real photo, but most probably of a log.)
Bartholomew's book is one of the very best cryptozoology books ever. However, during the podcast he goes overboard at one point stating an idea too broadly. When he makes the following statement he seems to elevate it out of the proper context. "And I think that the ultimate answer to the mystery of what’s in Lake Champlain will not be solved by scanning the lake and looking for evidence, of a prehistoric or undiscovered creature. It will be solved by looking upward, to the human mind and at what deep seated psychological needs are being fulfilled. The whole notion of Champ, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, UFO’s, ghosts, as anti-scientific symbols in a secular age undermining mainstream science, I think that is the key relevance here. That is what it tells us from a sociological point of view.” Here he seems to have removed it from more reasonable qualifiers he used at other points in his discussion. At those points he says, "assuming they don't exist" and "for true believers." With those qualifiers his statement seems reasonable. Otherwise it tars all cryptozoologists with the same brush. Cryptozoology is not anti-scientific. To suggest that accepted science may be mistaken is not anti-scientific. Cryptozoology is a multidisciplinary subject and to claim the whole prize for sociology seems a bit much. Skepticism does not undermine science and cryptozoology is skepticism of Cuvier's dictum that we already know exactly what has gone extinct.
ReplyDeleteClark, I think you're right on there. It was an excellent book, but cryptozoology, which deals with real animals that can be confirmed or refuted (given sufficient effort) is not on a par with the other subjects he listed.
ReplyDeleteIt is not necessarily paranormal and I prefer to define it as not involving the paranormal. Even the okapi was found by a romantic zoologist pursuing the unicorn. The okapi is really a prehistoric survivor in that short-necked forest giraffes such as Samotherium were known in the fossil record before its discovery. Cryptozoology is a multi-disciplinary subject and sociology has a strong bearing on it.
ReplyDeleteMy main concern is that skepticism of accepted science not be stigmatized as anti-science.
ReplyDeleteIn their article, "From Wildman to Monster" in Voices: The Journal of New York Folklore, Bartholomew and co-author Regal make the same claim. They say, "At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the stubborn persistence of Bigfoot sightings
ReplyDeleteand beliefs are anti-scientific symbols in an increasingly secular age." I suggest they are equally symbols of healthy skepticism about accepted science.
Clark, I have read a lot on the okapi, and never that it had any connections with searching for a unicorn. Do you know a source?
ReplyDeleteAnd we cryptozoologists should stop citing Cuvier's dictum: I think it's far too old to be relevant.
I'll try to get the source on the okapi and the unicorn. In mind it seems like it was a source I was confident of.
ReplyDeleteI think that Cuvier's idea that we can be tremendously confident we know what is extinct, still is believed with a religious conviction among professionals.
Actually, it was in one of the best ever cryptozoology books, The Natural History of Unicorns. It was actually Harry Hamilton Johnston who was motivated to find the unicorn in Africa, leading to the discovery of the okapi. In his day it was commonly suspected the unicorn could be found in Africa. On Google one commonly finds the okapi called the African unicorn to this very day!
ReplyDeleteTo recap, this demonstrates that romantic zoology can result in significant new zoological discoveries of prehistoric survivors.
ReplyDeleteClark, I'll look that up. Thanks for the pointer.
ReplyDelete