Pseudoscience Does Not Adhere to Any Scientific Norms - Essay Example

Pseudoscience is merely a claim or claim that is presented in such a way that it is believed to be scientific. However, a closer inspection usually details the fact that pseudoscience does not adhere to any scientific norms, utilize the scientific method, or have a direct level of proof that can inform the individual as to whether or not it is a valid claim or belief to engage with.  Although there are many types of pseudoscience, perhaps one of the more interesting versions is about what has become known as cryptozoology.

A further reason that such “evidence” continues to be discussed is the fact that the general population finds such myths intriguing and is oftentimes of the opinion that “truth is stranger than fiction”.  However, mere belief in such superstitions does not make them so; and most certainly does not allow for science to prove the existence of such things.  Yet another reason that cryptozoology is a type of pseudoscience has to do with the complete misinterpretation of what science is intended to answer and how it allows for a more complete and definitive understanding of a given topic (Miller 86).  In short, individuals who are advocates of cryptozoology ask that science disprove the existence of the creatures that they believe in; however, this is not possible as it is the role of science to prove or disprove theories; not to prove something false without any evidence or specimens whatsoever. 

Scholars have oftentimes noted that pseudoscience is characterized by its abysmal lack of evidence, lack of corroboration, deviation from the standard methods of scientific exploration, and dogged belief rather than the scientific method.  All of these aspects are painfully evidenced in the field of cryptozoology (NECKAR 65).  If one considers the case of perhaps the most famous cryptozoological belief, that of Nessie or the Loch Ness Monster, it can definitively be stated that no evidence of any consequential nature has thus far been presented; however, rather than this dissuading individual from believing, it should be stated that the world of cryptology deviates from the world of true zoology in yet another important way.  This is with regards to how those who believe in cryptozoology are continually expectant that a lack of scientific evidence for their specific theory or explanation merely does not exist because bias within the scientific community is somehow keeping it from them (Cressey 406).  Naturally, this is a bit conspiratorial and does not help to add any level of credence to the unscientific and rather uninformed worldview of many of those who put forward such theories as that of cryptozoology. 

Naturally, if specimens existed and could be corroborated, then it is more than possible that at least one of the formerly “cryptozoological” species could be added to the list of living; albeit severely endangered and previously unknown species.  Moreover, even with specimens if conclusive proof of existence, such as corroborated evidence by several individuals and experts in the field, droppings, video evidence that proves convincingly that such a creature might exist, or any number of other verifiable and testable means could be brought forward, at least one type of “creature” that is put forward by the world of cryptozoology to exist could be definitively added to the ranks of identifiable creatures (Dendle 191).  However, because humans number more than 7 billion, it is doubtful that there will be any future breakthroughs about new additions of large mammalian species within the world as we know it.  This should not serve to make the scientist close-minded concerning the issue; rather, it merely should add a layer of rightful inquiry and skepticism concerning whether or not such exhibitions of previously unknown creatures exist within the current environment of our world.