In his new essay, Professor Gonzalez delves into the enigmatic world of cryptids, creatures purported to exist without scientific validation. He examines the eerie sensations and phenomena often linked to cryptid sightings, advocating for evidence-based reasoning over anecdotal reports. Gonzalez critiques cryptozoology for its reliance on stories and eyewitness accounts rather than scientific rigor. He contrasts pseudoscience with genuine science. Particularly, he highlights the differences between pseudosciences like criminology, psychology, sociology, and theology versus hard sciences such as astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics, and the fascinating realms of quantum mechanics. Emphasizing the importance of scientific standards, Gonzalez also critiques reality TV shows and internet podcasts for promoting belief in cryptids without credible evidence.

     Have you ever experienced that spine-tingling sensation, the 'goose bump' effect, triggered by something you thought, saw, or heard? What about when the lights dim and a shadow moves? What entity is lurking? Does it make noises? Are there screeches, growls, or snorts? A sudden shriek in the night, what could it be? Numerous alleged sightings and scant evidence of anything suggest a wide range of mischief. And those strange monsters, where do they originate, our imaginations? As some might say, the cryptids provide fodder for intriguing discussions, debates, and endless quests for discovery. According to a U.S. government website, a cryptid is a creature believed to exist but lacking scientific confirmation.

     In one seemingly science-oriented publication, the term 'cryptid' encompasses many creatures, from Bigfoot to the Loch Ness Monster. This list of animals includes myriad manifestations that continue to elude scientific substantiation. Considered a pseudoscience, cryptozoology (i.e., the study of cryptids) relies primarily on anecdotal stories as prima facie evidence for the non-existence in the existence of elusive creatures. However, it is crucial to underscore the importance of scientific validation in this field, as it challenges the validity of anecdotal evidence and emphasizes the need for evidence-based reasoning. Let's not forget that this is an ongoing quest for proof, not a closed case. On the issue of pseudoscience, nothing herein is intended to downplay, condescend, or otherwise disparage the concept of pseudoscience. Instead, in this discourse, this classical view of criminology considers 'pseudo' to infer what is currently unknown. Maybe someday, a proof will verify the actual reality of those things claimed without evidence. Until then, the varied realms of pseudoscience continue their metaphysical adventures. Pseudoscientific investigations exist in many venues throughout the U.S.

     Four fields, in particular, come to the forefront of many discussions. Sometimes referred to as the 'social studies arena', these philosophical explorations include criminology, psychology, sociology, and theology. By contrast, there are the real sciences, such as astronomy, biology, chemistry, and physics, to name a few. As to the latter, this discourse considers these domains to constitute the scientific community. In a court of law, scientific validation must meet the general acceptance based on rigorous scientific community standards. This underscores the role of scientific community standards in determining the validity of evidence, challenging the use of anecdotal assertions as evidence. That is to say, an opinion and rumor or gossip are not considered high levels of evidentiary value. Similarly, eyewitness testimony falls into the associated connection regarding questionable evidentiary sufficiency.

     This emphasis on scientific validation is crucial to maintaining the integrity and reliability of our knowledge. Speaking of that, in general, take the domain of criminology, for instance. What does the science say about evidentiary authenticity? Such an inquiry depends on which part is under consideration. Is it the philosophy (ideology)? Or, is it the aspects of a crime scene investigation where a subspecialty called criminalistics might apply? As to the latter, that is arguable as to the attendant nature of what is considered science. An easy answer is that one should not consider criminology from a broad perspective as a science (i.e., biology, chemistry, physics, etc.). Numerous sub-categories of criminology exist as a spectrum within the metaphysical conjectures of the 'social studies arena'.

     The dominant four of the liberal arts in his spectrum were cited earlier. As to this discourse, the background is that of the classical school of criminology, which, of course, is an associated adventure in a long philosophical journey. Revisiting the notion of real science, this discussion considers three spectrums of 'scientific methodology'. Let's reiterate the importance of scientific validation. First, there is the hardcore stuff of measurable and experimental scientific investigation, such as applying to the sphere of physics. Second is the speculative adventures in pseudoscience, where non-scientists often attempt to prove the science of something. Again, nothing wrong with pseudoscience so long as a healthy sense of skepticism is maintained. Added to that is the search for credible evidence, and common sense considers all the facts. Third, another notion is interjected here, which might be considered the tentative nature of forensic science.

     The realm of the' CSI' fascination is Somewhere between the probability of scientifically factual sufficiency of proof (hard science) and pseudoscience. Of course, common sense suggests caution about anything on television, in the movies, novels, etc., purporting to accurately portray the world of crime scene investigation. Likewise, the same level of skepticism is applied to alleged reality TV. And the phrase 'forensic science' is often misleading. The wordage appears early in the book from a practitioner-written textbook on fingerprinting. Used in college classrooms for criminology classes, the words "forensic" and "science" receive introductory attention.  Historically, in ancient times, the term meant the "forum", a place for public debate. An inference is drawn toward the modern-day American courtroom, where adversaries argue the legal implication of evidence. Regarding that point, "forensic science" becomes a process by which real science applications might lend credence to the probability of a controversy. Of late, many questions have arisen about the scientific validity employed in crime scene investigations.

     The entire "CSI" spectrum realm has been called into question regarding the reliability of such processes. What is effective, reliable rep, eatable, and defendable? A textbook on crime scene investigation asserted those prospects during an initial inquiry. In an approach to the "scene of the crime," figuratively and realistically, what is the evidence? Two questions are suggested here. In the former, is the proposition defendable along with the rest of the primary qualifiers? Before that, in analyzing the "crime scene", whether an ideological expression or alleged "physical evidence", were proper techniques effectively utilized? And, can the event circumstances be replicated with reliably consistent results? The evidence demands testing and consistency.

     During further logically deduced inquiries, defending the investigation results should be done with a higher probability than mere opinion. Again, opening up about issues and spreading illicit, unsubstantiated gossip and rumor proves nothing. The incident scene could be a philosophical debate or a field investigation. A crime may or may not be at issue, but the phenomenon's essence may be of central focus. Responsibility in processing a "crime scene", loosely interpreted here, requires high regard for the value of provability to a special degree of likelihood. Where some adventures in metaphysics (i.e., the "social studies arena") claim the pretense of certainty, scientific validation is not absolute. Evidence labors in that realm whereby proof competes alongside disproof. As something is in contention for the pursuit of factuality, efficacy involves proving or disproving those facts. Meanwhile, at every opportunity, an effective inquisitor attempts to remain vigilant about his or her biases.

     He or she endeavors to keep in the forefront of thinking that an observer must be cautious about influencing observations. At the same time, an investigator can be fascinated and intrigued by "cryptids" yet maintain a healthy sense of skepticism. In realms of anomalous mental phenomenon, including mythic creatures, all manner of the unknown invite critical analysis. The variety of unexplained things is quite diverse. Accordingly, as an article in an "American scientific" publication suggests, reliance upon non-expert opinion and eyewitness testimony does not foster evidentiary sufficiency. Instead, intellectual and factual dangers regress to the naiveté of an anti-scientific perspective.  As indicated by the article's author, an analysis of cryptids consistently shows no provable evidence. Based on the analysis of other scientists, extraordinary evidence fails to support the existence of such a creature. Aside from mythic notions, magical thinking, and wishful mysticism, proof over the past 100 years remains elusive. As to the ecological, biological, and evolutionary assessments, provability favors the non-existence of such creatures.

     Yet, for many reasons, a cognitive bias pursues subjective validation in reality TV shows and internet podcasts. A professional paleontologist and a skeptical inquirer devoted many years to the hunt for cryptids. The researchers came to the general conclusion that things like the yeti were the product of imaginative processes. Again, back to the importance of thinking, whereby fantasy becomes a reality for many people. Belief systems are essential and slanted toward self-interests. Essentially, the primal basis is in the potency of individual sexuality.

     One theorist postulated the power of the Id. A workable metaphor about ideation and subsequent motivations, the impetus to various behaviors flows from such intentional premeditations. Such notions also reflect folklore, myth, and magic. Not only those, but likewise, hoaxing others, wishful storytelling, naïve points of view about nature, immature conjecture, and anecdotes regarding mistaken identifications. Amative impetus is both willful and contrived. Of this assertion, that is the perspective of this discourse. Others disagree, but here, who cares? Believe whatever you want. It still gets dark. When the light goes out for the last time, no one will remember, and all will be forgotten. In a related fashion, critical analysis castigates a long-running series in a hunt for monsters. This comes parallel to the discussion above about innate perpetrations from the manifestations of salacious purposes. In mountainous regions of the U.S., for nearly 10 seasons on a travelogue television channel, alleged hunters hunt cryptids.

     For about 10 years, audiences have been entertained by various segments purporting "monster hunts". As to the forgoing mention of one scientist's point of view, nothing of profound proof of evidentiary efficacy has been discovered. Of course, that is how pseudoscience works, particularly the "social studies arena" works. About those domains of collegiate schools of thought, broad segments of mainstream society have generally acquiesced to their questionable authenticity. In complicity, so have politicians and pundits. Similarly, pods, blogs, and other self-promotion internet schemes buy into the pseudoscientific rhetorical hyperbole. Wonderment, some observers ponder the ramifications of myth, magic, and metaphor cascading down the incessant passage toward medieval ignorance. Of this, the various realms of AMP warrant persistence through critical and confrontational analysis. Techniques and tactics coalesce around investigative processes that utilize logical deductive reasoning. Importantly, does a particular case study employ healthy doses of common sense? This part requires exceptional investigative credentials. Not some antics of an academic with no field experience who believes he or she "profiled" the suspect accurately after capture. Such con artistry seems always to work after the perpetrator has been arrested.

     But, before that, did the suspect cryptid, whether human or other, leave behind definitive, identifiable, and traceable evidentiary artifacts? The answer is, of course, not. In a review of a half dozen similar shows, including those hunting a "skin walker", a creature has never been caught. That is because all those monsters out there are people's projected ideations. Humans are the monsters. Whether from the royalty of a blood-sucking count or the electrification of death reanimated to howling rants beastly transformation, the human abyss creates all manner of deviation. Wishful thinking, as fantasy springs eternal, through the looking glass, and for confirmation bias, "monster from the Id" arise. On a deeper, more intricately profound nexus, the carnality rages behind the psychic scenes. Roaring against the finality, the finiteness of eventual extinction, Through dark corridors of the "mind", the brain's projection system, the imagination spins forth one story after another. Fantasy pretends to be reality.

     Harnessing that salacious potency becomes the challenge of a lifetime. Some do it well, but others do it not for prosocial welfare. With such power, the potential for personal transformation to higher ascendancy of enlightenment possesses nearly endless possibilities. Few endeavor to embrace their darkness to the extent of unleashing their creative liberation. Since everyone is self-evolving, or not, at different junctions of time and space, expectations are diverse. Many refuse the hard work of such processes. Unfortunately, the bias unduly influences the nature of every inquiry. As one 19th author of detective fiction suggested through one of his characters, one must not only see but also observe. Details are essential. Also, credentials are critical. That means a complex mixture of real-world dynamics, a sound educational foundation, and an evolving posture of mature growth. Meanwhile, belief does not make something true .

     To see through the nonsense, the inquisitor must exert skeptical precision of rational analysis. This also invites a very open-minded presence. In an article addressing zoology, one science magazine ponders speculations about the value of cryptozoology. As a probable subset of the overall spectrum of anomalous mental phenomena, the researcher addresses the dichotomy between serious believers and skeptical inquirers. For the latter, because one is suspicious of such studies as pseudoscience, it does not mean the investigator is uninterested in the inquiries. More likely, people are fascinated with how they believe, express their beliefs, and behave otherwise. The real intrigue is in the behavioral aspects of social interactivity attendant to credulous notions of "cause and effect". Despite insufficient evidence, the vast majority of the populace intentionally accepts things that cannot be proved to exist.

     In 2022, a major national business publication offered an article on current research relative to the conceptual framework of anomalous mental phenomena. In this case, the writer alleges an affiliation with the world of psychology. While not specifically addressing issues related to cryptids, the focus was more on the claims of paranormal experiences. Following up on the supposed latest research, whatever the methodology might be, an assertion regarding the commonality of AMP is considered. Assessing an article written in a spiritually-oriented psychological publication, the author, in this case, reviews alleged research into belief systems of a religious nature. Wishful thinking can influence the mystery profoundly.

     Spirituality in clinical practice is another domain, or philosophical framework, within the broader scope of the multifaceted field of psychology. In this sense, the person's spiritual nature is explored through perceptions regarding a supernatural worldview.  An interesting point from the article is the continuing use of labeling human behavior. Aside from the numerous questions posed by the purported inquiries into the realms of the paranormal or the supernatural, there is one more mental condition added to the list. As such, a specter emerges from the shadows of psychic conjurations. This time, it is the "haunted people syndrome". According to the Promethean slant of resurrecting the Frankenstein monster, psychological researchers (of course, they were psychologists) claim a complex interwoven phenomenon links ideology, personality, cultural influences, and prior experiences with unexplained occurrences.

     Further, the "ghost studies" investigation supposedly the inquiry reveals that such efforts will help better understand paranormal events. And this took how long to conclude? A criminologist or two in this discourse would say that such a notion is already assumed. Yes, the U.S. Government has studied the world of psychic phenomena, or AMP, for several decades. But wait, a label is needed, right? Haunted people syndrome? Another investigator wonders if there are no more hidden agendas behind such contemporary "social studies" findings. Those claiming such inquiries rise to the level of hardcore science suggest philosophy and science are blurred in the distinction between the real and the surreal. Placing such pseudoscience, cloaked in the disguise of scientific validation, is potentially scarier than the illusion of a ghostly encounter. As to the perpetrators of the "haunted people syndrome", the underlying motivations appear to be bringing such phenomena into the clinical environment. Of ghostly and ghastly possibilities, making such personal experiences a "mental health" issue is socially very spooky. Does that infer a treatment protocol? And if so, what new drugs might hit the consumer market?

     How many people might claim such an "affliction"? All that fun stuff aside, in science, certainty tends toward the vast regions of probability versus certainty. As such, a potent and stiffened resolve fluctuates around the possibility that something else might counter an original hypothesis. In the conflict between scientific authenticity and philosophical conjecture, one vying with the other, ideologies often opt for self-serving confirmation bias.

     That is to say, in the metaphysical conjecture of the "social studies arena", schools of thought claim the certitude of their particular unscientific points of view. Much confusion abounds in social media, news media, and the general public. Woefully ignorant of real science, most people slant toward opinion, rumor, gossip, and awful anecdotal conjecture instead of hard-care facts. While fantasy is a wonderful world of imaginative possibilities whereby salacious natures should be fully embraced, caution is warranted toward a healthy balance. The avoidance of harmful outcomes tempers exploration. In search of answers to complex questions, the investigator ought to ensure an ongoing process of perpetual enlightenment. Of such illumination, wiser ascendancy to ever-evolving maturation is essential. For wannabes, children masquerading as adults gain more worldly insight by growing up and forsaking childish things.

     By stereotypic Hollywood depiction, white lab coats, steaming beakers, and dark buzzing laboratories do not infer that real science is occurring. In other words, when hunting "monsters" or exotic "toys" does not mean scientific inquiry is taking place. Much like the poorly contrived quality, bad acting, and terrible script writing in modern horror films, modern "cryptid" hunting is more comedy and credible investigation. What some credible scientists call "sham science" all too frequently fills the "infotainment" world. With night vision, choreographed green tints, and an array of electronic equipment, the pretense of fraud is rampant. Like many things, having all kinds of really cool "equipment" does not infer that a group of "monster hunters" are scientists. But showmanship is very successful. For the philosophical assertions herein, the understanding is that science is not about the "toys" of alleged cryptid hunting or actors trying to cool on camera mysteriously.  It is profoundly more concerned with investigating how the real-world works. Such investigative processes necessitate the exceptional viability of critical analysis.

https://sites.google.com/view/randygonzalez-scribd/home