The RELICT HOMINOID INQUIRY 4:75-78 (2015) Comment NORMAL SCIENCE, REVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE Notes on Bryan Sykes’ The Nature of the Beast Hominology research has science is, at heart, a branch of philosophy, been joined in recent years which is the reason practitioners qualify as by two geneticists: Dr. PhDs – Doctors of Philosophy. Science is a Melba Ketchum of the philosophy based not on opinion or subjective USA and Dr. Bryan Sykes judgment or orders from a higher authority or of Great Britain. This in from God, but on evidence. I felt as though itself is a major develop- my profession was unfairly accused by the ment, indicating that community of cryptozoologists.” hominology is making Number one, Sykes does not differentiate progress and entering a cryptozoology and hominology. It’s like not promising stage. These notes are occasioned differentiate paleontology and paleo- by Sykes’ book The Nature of the Beast anthropology. Mammoth fossils are studied (London: Coronet, 2015), in which the author by paleontologists, Neanderthal and explains why he became engaged in Gigantopithecus fossils by paleoanthropolog- cryptozoology-hominology and tells of his ists. On p. 163 the author defines crypto- investigations. His very clear explanation of zoology: ‘The search for animals whose the aim and method of his work deserves great existence is not proven’. While in a Press appreciation from hominologists, providing Release he presents his grand Project to which excellent lessons in genetics relative to the book is devoted in this way: SCIENTISTS hominology. I see this as the main asset of the SEARCH FOR YETI DNA. The Oxford- book. Regrettably, being a novice in this field, Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project (p. 162). Dr. Sykes presents a wrong picture of In cryptozoology, by his definition, we are hominology’s scientific status and situation, after ‘animals whose existence is not proven.’ and it is on this aspect of the book that I intend But in his Project he is in search of evidence to focus attention in my initial notes on the for hominids whose existence is not proven book. yet to the scientific community (my addition). On p. 10 we read the following: “In almost When Sykes deals with presumed evidence for every book written by cryptozoologists, as the existence of unproven and unidentified those who study creatures ‘unknown to hominids he works within hominology, and science’ are called, I encountered the when he attempts to discover new species of complaint that they had been ‘rejected by bear in Nepal he is engaged in cryptozoology. science.’ As a scientist, I knew very well that As a matter of fact, the book deals mainly science does not reject anything out of hand. with unidentified hominids, not unidentified Science is a way of trying to make sense of bears. The father of cryptozoology is Bernard the world that relies on evidence. As such Heuvelmans, the father of hominology is © RHI BRYAN SYKES 76 Boris Porshnev. He wrote of the “emerging be very concerned about how my interest in science of relict hominoids” in 1963. In 1972, the sasquatch, if made public, would affect my after his passing, I coined and started using the reputation as a wildlife biologist, and hence term hominology. my employ-ability. When, after almost The discrepancy of non-distinguishing twenty-five years of research, I had reviewed between cryptozoology and hominology is felt enough evidence to be certain about the throughout the book, as, for example, in this existence of the sasquatch, I finally came “out sentence: “Cryptozoology is not short of good of the closet” with my interest in this species” stories, but none beats the case of the (John Bindernagel, North America’s Great Pangboche Finger” (p. 191). The Pangboche Ape: the Sasquatch, 1998, p. 20). In 2010, the Hand is clearly a hominid (human) hand, an following is said in the Foreword of his book object of anthropology, not zoology, so none The Discovery of the Sasquatch: “Scientists of cryptozoology either. As a result, as soon as who publicly express an interest in the first DNA testing showed that the Pangboche sasquatch phenomenon risk doing serious Finger was ‘human’ (what else could it be?), it damage to their reputations, and the was rejected as evidence and not subjected to institutions that employ them may frown upon deeper analysis. Hominology has been even indirect associations with the subject.” suffering all along from this deplorable tactic Is this not in contradiction with what Dr. of geneticists who are ignorant of our science. Sykes says about our situation in relation to At this stage, the similarity between science? And why did he feel as though his cryptozoology and hominology, like between “profession was being unfairly accused?” Not paleontology and paleoanthropology, is in clear at all. On the contrary, his interest in methodology of investigation, in the sources hominology and wish to help and contribute of evidence, such as history, folklore, are highly welcome. But to be really helpful testimonials, sightings, footprints, etc. and fruitful he has to realize that he is still a Hominology is still at a cryptoanthropological student in our field, not a professor; in other stage of development and this what makes it words, still bound to do a lot of home work. confused with cryptozoology. But the That his efforts in this respect have not been difference is clear and I hope to mention its sufficient so far is evident from the very further significance later. subtitle of the book: The first scientific Number two, the author uses the term evidence on the survival of apemen into science in the above cited passage in a strange modern times. There is discrepancy here, too. way, as if anyone of our community accused If the statement is true, this means Dr. Sykes science of misbehavior. I’ve never read that. has proved the existence of relict hominids. Complaint is not against science, but But there is no such claim on his part in the scientists, the scientific community, or, more book. So far Sykes is not even convinced the to the point, against the SCIENTIFIC apemen really exist! Then what about the title ESTABLISHMENT. Evidence of its press- of the volume – The Nature of the Beast? ures, bans, rejections and misbehavior is Non-existent beasts can’t but be devoid of galore and duly documented in the homin- nature. ological literature. In Russia, this concerns the The heading of Chapter 14 is “Good careers of, among others, such researchers as Science, Bad Science.” This true and proper Boris Porshnev, Dmitri Bayanov, Igor distinction is useful for our theme. But Burtsev; in the US, Grover Krantz, Jeff immeasurably more proper and even crucial Meldrum; in Canada, John Bindernagel. Said for us are the terms normal science and the latter in 1998: “In my own case I used to revolutionary science, as set out by Thomas THE NATURE OF THE BEAST 77 Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Revolutions, 1962. The greatest scientific The proof is in the oft quoted words of John revolution occurred when scientists Napier: “But if any one of them is real then as recognized that the Earth moves and goes scientists we have a lot to explain. Among around the Sun. Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno, other things we shall have to re-write the story Kepler and others were its first revolutionary of human evolution. We shall have to accept scientists. It was a revolution in astronomy, in that Homo sapiens is not the one and only philosophy, in the worldview. Overcoming living product of the hominid line, and we great resistance and suffering casualties, the shall have to admit that there are still major revolution won and astronomy today is a mysteries to be solved in a world we thought normal science. Thus, sciences can turn from we knew so well” (In his book Bigfoot: The normal to revolutionary and vice versa. Yeti and Sasquatch in Myth and Reality, A minor revolution in astronomy occurred in 1973). the 18th century when scientists learned, to Time to quote Thomas Kuhn: “Normal their greatest surprise, that heaven is capable science, the activity in which most scientists of “dropping” stones onto earth. This had been inevitably spend almost all their time, is known to non-scientists throughout history but predicted on the assumption that the scientific scientists viewed the notion as superstition. community knows what the world is like. (…) This is the most analogous case to what we Normal science, for example, often suppresses experience in hominology (see my article “A fundamental novelties because they are Hominologist’s View from Moscow, USSR” necessarily subversive of its basic commit- in The Scientist Looks at the Sasquatch, 1977). ments.” We understand, of course, that, saying Meteoritics was a revolutionary science then normal science is often suppressive, Kuhn and is a normal science today. means normal scientists, not science. He The greatest scientific revolution after the means the scientific community which is Copernican was the Darwinian, since it acting on the assumption that it knows “what concerned the origin of man, being also a the world is like.” revolution in philosophy and the worldview. In their turn paleoanthropologists, engaged But unlike the Copernican revolution, the in their normal science, are acting on the Darwinian has not won yet! And this is tragic idiotic assumption that all pre-sapiens for mankind. To give you just one example, hominids died out at the time shown by the Islamic fundamentalism, extremism and last fossil findings, quietly ignoring the terrorism would have been impossible if all famous coelacanth case. They are quietly young people on earth knew the evolutionary ignoring the fact that the central term of origin of man.