Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,233 Year: 5,490/9,624 Month: 515/323 Week: 12/143 Day: 2/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Motley Flood Thread (formerly Historical Science Mystification of Public)
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 8 of 877 (833845)
05-27-2018 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by RAZD
05-27-2018 7:19 AM


There are plenty of examples of this kind of "science" but here's a typical one from National Geographic:
A magazine, one that caters to the scientifically literate, using generally accepted science as given.
National Geographic is known more for their photography and popular general stories about exotic people and places; exotic being different than at home. Original research is not reported because it would bore their audience.
Interestingly, NG does fund scientific research. I was part of a team that applied for and received a research grant from NG. We received funding from several other sources also. The papers reporting the research that were subsequently printed were not published in National Geographic and all that appeared there was a short paragraph in their news section on one aspect of our observations.
Our primary paper was published in the journal Biogeography and included paleo-biogeography, fossil distribution, modern species geographic distribution and molecular analysis (of all the species of one dragonfly family), and plate tectonics.
So this is another example of a flat assertion of what purports to be fact. Nothing tentative here, no consideration of different possible interpretations. ...
Again, this is generally accepted science for scientifically literate people and the background does not need to be regurgitated, because it is understood.
The documentation of the scientific research that supports the assertions fills libraries at universities around the world. Stories in National Geographic are written to appeal to general readers and are not meant to be speculative but rather based on "generally accepted science" that doesn't need to be explained in every story.
I remember some stories in the 1960's about medieval Europe and the growth of Christianity that really fascinated me when I was in high school. They inspired me to dig deeper into archaeology. That is what normal people do; they follow up to understand accepted science. If you haven't done the research you don't have a sound basis to criticize the scientific conclusions.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 05-27-2018 7:19 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 9 of 877 (833847)
05-27-2018 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by edge
05-27-2018 11:20 AM


Frankly, I have a problem with characterizing the climate of the Jurassic in simplistic terms. After all, this is a fairly large planet with land, oceans, weather and tectonism. We clearly had deserts in what was western North America at the time. Really, there is no need to generalize. After all, why couldn't climates have been similarly variable as they are today?
And remember, the Jurassic Period lasted for 50 million years.
This is exactly right. My dad used to say that "the climate millions of years ago was mild and tropical." I had to keep reminding him that weather is local and global climate cannot be judged from local observations. Individual storms seldom if ever, leave evidence in the geological record and evidence of a warm (mild) climate does not imply that the weather was any less a chaotic system in the past than it is today.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by edge, posted 05-27-2018 11:20 AM edge has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 75 of 877 (833981)
05-28-2018 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
05-28-2018 3:24 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Faith writes:
it's about how the whole scientific community presents this stuff to the public, as if it were set in stone that the Jurassic period existed and had such characteristics
The irony.....it is set in stone.
Faith writes:
as if this were revealed to them from heaven.
So, YOU are complaining about revelations from heaven? You, who thinks revelations from heaven is the ultimate authority?
Faith writes:
It's typical and it has nothing to do with the audience as you all keep trying to claim.
Of course it does. Every reasonable reader, from 7th graders on, understands that they can research whether what they read in magazines is based on evidence or bullshit. When I was in school there were science books on specific fields with further listed references in the library as well as encyclopedias.
Now, they also have the internet, although in your case, the internet is not your friend.
Faith writes:
It's just typical historical science mystification: we say it, therefore it's absolutely true, therefore you must believe it.
Oh, boo hoo, they won't let you research whether it's true or not and they certainly won't let you express your ignorance.
You would completely disregard any basic supporting evidence as we see you always do here, so don't expect anyone to respect your point. Finding evidence that supports or refutes scientific articles in magazines is understood to be the reader's responsibility and it is entirely your own fault if you are too lazy or ignorant or stubborn to do that.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 3:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 9:08 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 145 of 877 (834098)
05-30-2018 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
05-28-2018 9:08 PM


Re: Nope, it's not for the "scientifically literate" and the public deserves more respect
Finding evidence that supports or refutes scientific articles in magazines is understood to be the reader's responsibility and it is entirely your own fault if you are too lazy or ignorant or stubborn to do that.
But of COURSE, I take it for granted here that everything is my own fault. There is no doubt in my mind that if I said the sky is blue today I'd be told I'm so wrong I shouldn't be allowed to breathe.
And yet, the point went right over your head. Once again, your lack of knowledge is the result of your own rejection of every source of knowledge that has been presented to you here.
[sarcasm]Your martyrdom for "the truth" is noted by everone![/sarcasm]
Faith writes:
There is no doubt in my mind that if I said the sky is blue today I'd be told I'm so wrong I shouldn't be allowed to breathe.
Well, we will never know, will we, since you never say anything true.
And even when you are completely, amazingly wrong and nasty, rude and arrogant, no one has ever said anything close to "You're so wrong you shouldn't be allowed to breathe."
The only participant here who uses that sort of rhetoric is you, toward people who disagree with your political, religious, social, and philosophical views.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 05-28-2018 9:08 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024