Sea monsters!

Darren Naish writes in defense of cryptozoology:
"Note that the existence of marine cryptids has been taken seriously, or even supported, by some pretty influential individuals, among them Thomas Huxley, D'Arcy Thompson, Arthur Conan-Doyle..."

Ah, yes.It's because of the noted and influential Arthur Conan-Doyle that I still keep my camera-phone at ready whenever I go into the forest, just in case I happen upon some dancing fairies.

You know, that's similar to saying one shouldn't be impressed with any scientists of the late 18th and early 19th century because they didn't believe in "stones from the sky." And Newton believed in alchemy, astronomy, and Biblical prediction. The point is, AC Doyle was promoting rationality in addition to believing in cryptophenomena.

Henry Bauer makes an interesting point in his book "The Enigma of Loch Ness" that arguing for misinterpretation of known phenomenon as a solution for Nessie is difficult because "there are very few demonstrated and published instances of mistakes being made at Loch Ness by witnesses who did not soon themselves recognize their own mistake". While he conceeds that they no doubt exist he argues that they have not been demonstrated in a wholesale manner, unlike in the case of UFOs.

While a statistical approach to the existing data might allow for the conclusion that 90 or 95% of UFO sightings can be attributed to weather balloons, planets, meteors, aircraft, ect. (because we have good data available for comparison), the phenomenon offered as possible misindentifactions for Nessie aren't nearly as well documented (i.e. no one has photographed a floating vegetation mat in Loch Ness, no one has photographed a sturgeon in Loch Ness, no one has offered a photograph of a known animal in Loch Ness that really looks like something other than what it is, no one has precisely recreated the Dinsdale film using a man in a boat, no one has convincingly determined how many Nessie photos are frauds and how many are honest misinterpretations, ect.). Photos of boat wakes that look like humps and your previously posted seal photo may look interesting at first glance, but I think they're ultimately fairly obvious for what they are.

Marion,
Conan-Doyle defended the Cottingley Fairies photographs even after they'd become indefensible. Also, he started championing the case for the fairies in 1920, which was hardly the 18th or 19th century.In fact the fairy photographs were taken during World War One.

So do some research, dude.

By 1916 Arthur Conan-Doyle was also a convert to spiritualism, a stupid belief system with pseudo-scientific trappings.

So he was the early 1900's equivelant of a scientologist or intelligent design advocate.

Quit bashing Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, please. We don't need another internet thread bashing the good man. Without him, we wouldn't have Sherlock Holmes or Professor Challenger. I happen to think he contributed a lot to our culture and I really don't appreciate all this hatred towards the man. Find someone else who deserves to be throttled. Besides, he's dead, anyway.

And on the note of this article, I'm tempted to point out this (you may of seen/heard it before) http://paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm

Scrolling down the to the bottom you see another example of Creationist dishonesty as well.

Juju,

This thread refers to an article on cryptozoology that talks about Conan-Doyle as if he was Sherlock Holmes himself, rather than just the character's creator.Conan-Doyle was in no way a rational man. Therefore how can it be wrong for me to point out how irrational the man was?

Using Conan-Doyle's writings to boost the validity of cryptozoology reminds me very much of how global warming skeptics have latched on to the work of author/pseudo-scientist Michael Crichton. I mean, I enjoyed Westworld and Jurassic Park alot, but I still think Crichton is a crank.

Well, I agree to a certain degree there bargal20. i however think that just because a man believes certain things such as mystical naked nymphs in the forest (which I must admit, I hope to find one basking in the sunlight bathing eachother one day) but that he should not be ragged on in all aspects, hate the thoughts not the person so to say. Sir Doyle has brought us many beloved stories and charaters. Just because Tom Cruise thinks all of the world's problems are caused by brain-washed alien ghosts sent to earth on space-jets by the dark lord Xenu, doesn't mean his work in a few good men was bad. But still, sea serpents and cryptozoology are rather laughable, but again, there are lots of things we don't know, hell, we found out rather recently the giant squids do in fact exist. Does this mean that we should respect them like an average biologist or zoologist? No, but when (or more likely if) they find something credible, don't ostracize the smart ones because of the crackpots.

Che,

Where in this thread have I ragged on all aspects of Conan-Doyle's work? I love his fiction! But I think I'm on firm ground when I ridicule anyone who takes him seriously when it comes to sea monsters, fairies or ghosts.

Keep in mind that totally rubbishing the study of cryptids, UAPs, and other such oddities is just as dumbassed as Cretinists and IDiots denying evolution. 'So you have a whole stack of credible witness reports? Not if I stick my fingers in my ears and go lalalaaaaa! Sorry, mind closed!'.
Asshattery like gods is one thing, but skepticism can be just as dogmatic as religion when taken too far. After all, its only relativly recently that ball lightening has been accepted by meteorology.

Good rule of thumb:

Many things are possible. Few things are true.

p,

who here is rubbishing the study of cryptids, UAPs, and other such oddities? I'm rubbishing the suggestion that Arthur Conan-Doyle 's endorsement adds credibility to it.

Would you like scientists involved in SETI to use Whitely Strieber's support to somehow lend credibility to their work?

Could everybody here please pick a more offhanded and uninteresting sentence from the blog entry to argue about here?

Thanks.

J there has a bit of a point, this isn't about Sir Doyle. We 'should' be discussing sea-serpent's and the like, to which I point to my mention of the recent confirmed discovery of Giant squids, and Gigantopithecus (which very much appears to look like the mythological Yeti and Sasquactch, though such creatures still existing on the fringe of inhabited areas are more than up for debate)ergo, ultimately we must recognize that the extent of human knowledge is far less encompassing than we would like to believe, and there are certain facets of science that deny the thought that something could be anything other than that which they know, medicine is guilty of this rather often unfortunately such as a few years back when dentists discovered that lead fillings can be bad for you (what a shock) to which I know an individual who asked their dentist wouldn't lead drilled into their teeth pose possible health risks (granted this was in the range of thirty to forty years ago) and the dentist replied no it's fine.
I grant that was a little off-topic but still holds ground if one applies it to this notion of cryptozoology. Remember, minds are quite akin to parachutes, they work best when open. Does this mean you accept every cockamamie idea thrown at you? No, but you should look in depth at each new idea to determine if it is just another pile of hogwash, or something truly worth merit. Granted many tales of "Nessie" and sea serpents are often hilarious in their total lack of reality (I'm sorry but a creature that size living in a loch is a bit absurd, we'd have seen some Nessie Droppings, are mayhaps a dead infant Nessies washed up on the beach, seeing as a single creature being there for such a time period is a bit out there but as i said earlier, it is a matter where I don't think it likely, but that isn't to say it cannot be) but one must be able to get past the subject and look at the material for it's worth.