What's that saying in science? Something about nobody ever really shifting paradigms, but it's just the younger generation that grows up with the acceptance of the new system and eventually the old stubborn guys just die off?
quote:"a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."--Max Planck (quoted in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn)
I can't summarize my points, as I've made none in this thread. I feel like a bit of a cheat.
The 'Conspiracy Road Trip' show is a fun format where laymen that hold conspiracy theories are exposed to evidence that contradicts their views.
In the 7/7 episode they had the theorists walk the same route, catch the same trains as the bombers, as there was a conspiracy theory that they couldn't have done it. They watched a guy use household products to create explosives and then use those explosives to blow the roof off a bus: some theories claimed it wasn't possible and it must have been military grade.
The Creationism episode was not as good as that episode. It was interesting to see the group dynamic, but I don't feel as if they really did much to resolve the matter. I think the best bit was probably ordering the skull fossil copies section. I'd like to see more of that kind of thing. Taking them to Grand Canyon as discussed by others, seems to have been handled pretty poorly.
I didn't really like the Jerry Coyne bit either (about 15 minutes in). Poor editing, maybe? We seem to skip from bit to bit, and nobody is seen making a coherent argument except for a bit about ship's of a certain size being infeasible. Then after some tears and patronising comments, we cut to Jerry saying 'I've already given you so much evidence'. Had he? What evidence are we talking about? And why is Jerry Coyne brought on to discuss boats? Surely we should be hearing about bottlenecks and biogeography or something. Maybe he talked about those things, I think he probably did. But we don't get to see it - the editors seem to have focussed on the bickering and ignored the discussion.
He did say some interesting things about creationism and rejection of evolution later, out of earshot of the creationists.