There's one roadblock and sticking point I've encountered in my cryptozoological research: semantics. I'll outline my situation here and hope someone can guide me, help me, or even correct me if I'm wrong. However, since I started working in this field, semantics has always proven to be a glaring weakness, the only aspect requiring clarification.
There are several well-known (I'll refer to "big") cryptids (like Sasquatch) so frequently described and sighted that the entire world will know when one has been found, identified, or discovered. No one will ask the question, "Is it Bigfoot or not?" Everyone knows it exists or it doesn't. Unfortunately, many others don't share this kind of inference (I often invent new words for myself).The infamous chupacabras may be the antithesis of Sasquatch in terms of semantic identity. What are they? This isn't a rhetorical question. What are they? Would we recognize one if we found one? Recent years have seen more itchy foxes and coyotes portrayed as mysterious beasts than memorable animals. Photos of these hideous creatures are invariably accompanied by screaming headlines calling them chupacabras. And weeks later, in much smaller headlines, the animals are sheepishly identified as what they truly are. "It wasn't a chupacabra," the articles read. But how can we tell?
What if a chupacabra turns out to be a sick coyote? It's possible that to the unfamiliar, such animals certainly look strange, shocking—perhaps shocking enough to create a legend. What if these rare (or not-so-rare) sick animals are just pretending to be carnivores and, upon their appearance, started making noises. If this hypothesis is even very possible, then perhaps... just perhaps... by catching a sick dog, they caught a chupacabra. But how did they recognize it? I know, confusing...
The name and personality of the "Loch Ness Monster" are perplexing. Imagine a completely hypothetical situation: a biologist discovers a species of eel in a lake that, under certain conditions, grows to colossal sizes. Could this be the long-awaited discovery of the mysterious Loch Ness Monster? I doubt it. It could be news, reported by the paranormal press, thus sparking some debate and discussion, but I can't imagine any news outlet announcing the discovery and solution of this mystery. No, I'm afraid the creature would be caged by someone for fame.Most people have a preconceived notion about such mysterious animals, believing that the cryptids they occasionally discover will undoubtedly remain undescribed and unacknowledged. I suppose I should expect this attitude from the general public. I just hope that those of us "in our field" (whatever that means) don't blindly fall into the same hole, because we all have something else.
In my personal opinion, and in my area of expertise (if I have such a thing), the biggest semantic trap in cryptozoology is the "Thunderbird." Does this bird have to have a specific head or wing color? Does its wingspan have to be 3 meters? Or maybe 5? Maybe 7? I've asked many people, "What is a Thunderbird?" and the vast majority have referred me to Native American stories. But where did these stories originate? From an occasionally sighted bird of prey with a wingspan of 7 meters?
My research has shown that this enormous Washington eagle really did exist and likely still does. Is it a Thunderbird? I received both answers.
I got into science as a student because I wasn't very good at formulating words. Semantics turned me off. Now, with a degree and a focus on cryptozoology, I find myself still tangled and caught between my two greatest enemies... semantics and words.
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz