This begs the question, “what exactly are the “accepted principles
of orthodox zoology”? A good place to
start is the book Principles of Zoology by by Louis Agassiz and Augustus A.
Gould. This book lists many functions and organs of animal life, including the
nervous system, the senses (including any “special senses”) elements of voice,
intelligence, instinct, motion, nutrition and digestion, circulation and
respiration, as well as reproduction and various secretions. The phrase “orthodox zoology” can be defined
only by defining the two words. Orthodox
means conforming to what is accepted as right or true or something not
independent-minded and unoriginal.
Zoology is defined as the science or branch of biology dealing with
animals. We can infer then that Orthodox
Zoology would be the generally accepted study of animals. 'Scientific principles' would be those that
explain the 'why' and 'how' of various phenomena using scientific method.
Ah, the “scientific method”;
so often we are, as researchers, accused of not applying this to our
studies. The Oxford English Dictionary
says that the scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has
characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic
observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and
modification of hypotheses.” This sounds
reasonable. Systematic observation,
measurement, experiment, formulation, and testing are certainly elements of Crytpzozoology as well.
The classical model of scientific method derives originally from
Aristotle, who distinguished the forms of approximate and exact reasoning, and
defined a threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive inference, as
well as considering the compound forms such as reasoning by analogy. In deductive reasoning, if the original
assertions are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Abductive reasoning typically begins with an incomplete set of
observations and proceeds to the likeliest possible explanation for the set. Most scientific researchers avoid abductive
reasoning because it is quite subjective.
Hard core scientists, like the BCSCC, use mostly deductive reasoning—they
base their facts and logic on what is known, comparing a proposed cryptid to
those animals that are known to currently exist or have previously existed.
Conversely, many
Cryptozoologists use the inductive method.
In fact, much mainstream scientific research is carried out by the
inductive method: gathering evidence, seeking patterns, and forming a
hypothesis or theory to explain what is seen.
Conclusions reached by the inductive method are not logical necessities;
no amount of inductive evidence guarantees the conclusion. It is this sort of ambiguity that sets
traditional/deductive scientists on edge.
In 1877, Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) characterized
inquiry in general not as the pursuit of truth per se but as the struggle to
move from irritating, inhibitory doubts born of surprises, disagreements, and
the like, and to reach a secure belief on which one is prepared to act. He
outlined four methods of settling opinion, ordered from least to most
successful:
1. 1. The method of tenacity (policy of sticking to
initial belief) — which brings comfort and decisiveness but leads to trying to
ignore contrary information..
2. 2. The method of authority (using the claims of “experts”)
can be majestic and long-lived, but it
cannot operate thoroughly enough to suppress doubts indefinitely, especially in
the face of adamant witness testimony.
3. 3. The
method of congruity (what is agreeable to reason)"promotes conformity but
depends on taste and fashion in paradigms and can go in circles over time. It
is more intellectual and respectable but, like the first two methods, sustains
accidental and capricious beliefs, destining some minds to doubts.
4. 4. The
scientific method — the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and
purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.
This seems much more appropriate in the study of
cryptids. Certainly there are those who
are tenacious, authoritative, and congruous in the field. It could be said that some even have those
traits when it comes to defining “Scientific Method”. But Pierce reminds us that science, and its
methods, are fallible and constantly corrects itself.
I propose the answer to the “justifiability” of cryptid
research as something other than a “pseudo-science” is a combination of
methodology, anthropological, historic and other established science in
congress with peer review. If we base
our research only on what has already been established and is generally
accepted (inductive and deductive classical methods or tenacity, authority and
congruity in the practical methods), nothing can really be gained except to
liken what is unknown to what is known. This, in and of itself, is directly
contrary to the idea of studying “unknown” animals. If they are unknown, they have nothing to
compare evidence to. It would seem then,
groups who limit themselves by never using abductive reasoning, are not seeking
to discover new animals but rather to debunk cryptids by making them to conform
to “known” science. By including those
who propose that cryptids do have some paranormal, occult or supernatural
viewpoints, real “scientific method”, as Pierce describes it, can be achieved.
I am in no way discarding the fundamentals of science. Certainly forensic evidence plays a huge
role, as does zoology and many other “ology” studies. To discard those who “think outside the box”
as pseudo-science or “ludicrous nonsense”, limits the scope of the research to
only that which is provable and “generally accepted”.
What good is that? We
already know what those animals are…
This article has a pretty bizarre grasp of what science is. Firstly there is no such thing as a purely deductive science save pure mathematics which perhaps should not be thought of as science at all.
ReplyDelete*All* scientists (who are not pure mathematicians) use induction all the time. Induction is the basis of statistics and all generalisations we make. We also use deduction but much less than induction. There is no distinction between deductive and inductive scientists. "The" scientific method involves induction (perhaps it owes more to 17th century philosophers than Aristotle though. Pierce defined abduction not Aristotle). No scientist I know would be uneasy at the use of induction (some might be less keen on abduction but scientists use that too - especially palaentologists). All good scientists understand about stochasticity and that their results are tentative and uncertain.
There is absolutely no reason normal science cannot study unknowns. Science does that all the time! And we do more than just liken knowns to unknowns, we estimate unknowns e.g. dark energy and dark matter, forensic science, species diversity etc. Science would not have progressed very far if we just likened unknowns to knowns.
"I am in no way discarding the fundamentals of science."
But you are. Supernatural hypotheses are hypotheses of last resort, they explain nothing as they throw up many more questions than they answer. Scientists will invoke new entities but are reluctant to do so except in the case of overwhelming evidence as it violates Occam's Razor. Because if you don't use Ockham's Razor and accept a supernatural solution anything goes, anything, not just one particular favoured supernatural explanation, but an infinity of them and we have no way of choosing between them. Loch Ness Monster is a ghost? Maybe or maybe it is a radio-controlled model controlled by goblins who can make it dematerialise at will. What rule can distinguish those hypotheses once Occam's Razor is discarded? Invoking the supernatural is not the progressive broadmindedness of a new type of science but rather an act of methodological desperation.
I find it funny that I have encountered two groups of people with wholly different world views (ultraskeptics and paracryptozoologists, to use Beckjord's term) who both think cryptozoological data is not really amenable to normal scientific investigation. It is, cryptozoologists just need to show a bit of systematic (not supernatural) methodological innovation.