You want evidence of the existence of sea serpents, you say? Behold and tremble!
You are misusing the word. Cryptozoology is not the search for previously unknown animals (which is commonly undertaken by field biologists), but the search for mythical or fabulous animals for which tales or anecdotes exist, but no authenticated physical evidence has been provided. The large mammals that have been discovered in the last century or so, such as the saola, Chaco peccary, and okapi, were first brought to the attention of scientists through physical remains. They then went looking for the living animal.
No reputable biologist would want to be called a cryptobiologist. I’ve discovered new species of birds, but it wasn’t because I was told legends about them and then went hunting them.
And the wastebin of science is full of bogus stories, anecdotes and the like, endless promulgated by people who don’t understand that for their outlandish theories to be accepted, real evidence is required.
“they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at the Wright brothers, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” - attributed to Carl Sagan.
“Absence of evidence means you ain’t got shit.” - Jackmannii
What’s the symbology behind nonexistent degree titles?
William Beebe and Otis Barton reported seeing a large snakelike creature during their 1934 bathysphere dive, the existence of which has never been verified. Not sure how that fits in with the OP’s dragon quest though.
Biologists discover new species all the time. Cryptobiologists never discover anything, because cryptobiologist are cranks.
There is no for-real scientist who would describe themselves as a cryptobiologist. The word is a shibboleth.
Astrology is a perfectly fine word to describe the science of studying the stars. Except in real life it means divination by the stars, and real scientists who study the stars call themselves astronomers or astrophysicists, or what have you. No scientist is going to call themselves an astrologer, and anyone who does is guaranteed to be a crackpot.
You can call yourself a biologist or zoologist and be a crackpot. But if you call yourself a crytobiologist or crytozoologist, you are guaranteed to be a crackpot.
If you inquire on Google regarding polls concerning the existence of sea-serpents, the majority vote ‘‘yes’’. On Wikipedia sea-serpents are regarded as a cryptid, and not a mythical animal (that they are).
I asked for evidence against the existence of sea-dragons. Come on now, ice-breathing, man-devouring ocean dragons existing? Of course not. I am asking for reasons against - mythical beings should be known for what they are - mythical.
So?
People are wasting money on hunts for these non-existent beings, wasting money on various books with made-up details, all derived from ignorance.
This isn’t even remotely evidence that they exist.
Your title says “Why are sea serpents accepted as fact?” This is false; they are not accepted as fact, and you are aware of this. Deliberately misrepresenting your position can be considered trolling, and is against the rules on this board. So just do like I ask, and not pretend that the evidence for mythical creatures is greater than it is. Otherwise I may consider closing your threads, and possibly issue a warning if this persists.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
This is closed. You may open a new thread in IMHO if you wish.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator