Question About Evolutionary Narrative [Archive] - Page 2

joobz

15th July 2008, 01:18 PM

I take it you don't have kids in public school because if this is what "under attack" is all about then I don't know what to say.I don't understand what you mean here.

Science isn't under attack.
False. By under attack, I mean that the quality of science education and the general scientific knowledge of the population is decreasing by active methods.

Evolution is under attack. Teaching scientific method is more important to me than teaching evolution.Teaching the method is the first week of science education. What do you do for the remaing school year?

I don't think it would matter much at all if evolution wasn't taugh in schools and I certainly do think we can teach evolution without focusing on it. Do you know how much time they spend on it in public school? Its a blip. There's so much more to science than evolution.wrong. Evolution is a central aspect to biology. Right up there with germ theory and DNA central dogma.

Chemistry and physics and other such things. Frankly I think they teach too much in the public school and most kids don't understand it. I would think it would work better to focus on scientific method and teach that as a foundation and then just add a little detail.

Certainly I argree, we should teach logic. But teaching too much science? I am a college professor. I teach chemical engineering. I spend too much time teaching concepts which should have been taught in thier freshman classes. The freshman classes can't teach much of those concepts, because they must teach things that students didn't get in high school.

The world is flat and if american students aren't taught a solid science education, we effectively cripple them in the world economy.

What is the number one complaint of scientists? That the public doesn't understand how science works. Well I wonder why? Maybe because we don't focus enough on that.
Learning the process of science doesn't take 4 years of highschool You can work in the principles of science during the course of teaching the core sciences.

Indeed, the discovery and debate of evolution makes a wonderful story highlighting the difference between science and dogma. I really do not see your complaint (while valid) as being an either or issue.

truethat

15th July 2008, 01:20 PM

You're not familiar with the arguments of the Young Earth Creationists, are you? Part of the issue -- and it came up very clearly at the Dover trial -- is that to attack evolution requires an attack on all scientific disciplines and on the scientific method itself. There are too many converging lines of evidence that need to be dismissed -- radiometric dating of rocks, the apparent size of the universe in conjunction with the speed of light, the information-theoretic properties of DNA sequences, etc --- to confine the attack purely to "evolution." This is why Behe was forced, on the stand, to redefine the "science" he wanted to teach in such a way that it included astrology, and for Mittnick (IIRC) to call for an "affirmative action" where demonstrably false theories were neverthelesss presented as true.

My point is that its been escalated to the point of hysteria. I'm not seeing what the doomsday result of a kid not being taught evolution in public school is?

I'm not seeing that too many kids can explain the scientific method. It seems to me that people confusing dispensing of information with education. Education to me is about metacognition and the details are pretty much not that important.

drkitten

15th July 2008, 01:20 PM

None of my children write cursive. You know why? Because the world has changed so much that the need for cursive has been replaced by a computer.

Cool. Let me know when the world has changed so much that the need for medical professionals has been replaced by a computer.

I would argue that most kids get a better education off the internet than they do in the schools.

Yeah. If only the numbers backed you up. The Internet is a great resource, but a lousy teacher -- which is part of why science education numbers are plummeting, because people think that the internet substitutes for actual education.

Civilized Worm

15th July 2008, 01:22 PM

This "big fear" that kids are goign to somehow being brainwashed by the Creationists is just a crazy hysteria.

Unless you live in a mountain locked away in the woods, you have access to ideas and information.

What do you mean "big fear"? Half of America already denies evolution!

truethat

15th July 2008, 01:24 PM

I don't understand what you mean here.

False. By under attack, I mean that the quality of science education and the general scientific knowledge of the population is decreasing by active methods.

Teaching the method is the first week of science education. What do you do for the remaing school year?

wrong. Evolution is a central aspect to biology. Right up there with germ theory and DNA central dogma.

Certainly I argree, we should teach logic. But teaching too much science? I am a college professor. I teach chemical engineering. I spend too much time teaching concepts which should have been taught in thier freshman classes. The freshman classes can't teach much of those concepts, because they must teach things that students didn't get in high school.

The world is flat and if american students aren't taught a solid science education, we effectively cripple them in the world economy.

Learning the process of science doesn't take 4 years of highschool You can work in the principles of science during the course of teaching the core sciences.

Indeed, the discovery and debate of evolution makes a wonderful story highlighting the difference between science and dogma. I really do not see your complaint (while valid) as being an either or issue.

Oh perfect! Just the person to ask. Do you agree that the students coming into your classroom are woefully misinformed in science?

I would wager that they need to be retaught the scientific method, theory and logic.

I would imagine kids pretty much have the equivalent of a trivial pursuit game of science. Lots of memorized data they have no idea what do with.

drkitten

15th July 2008, 01:24 PM

My point is that its been escalated to the point of hysteria.

I'm aware that that's your point. It simply happens not to be correct.

I'm not seeing what the doomsday result of a kid not being taught evolution in public school is?

You answer your own question.

I'm not seeing that too many kids can explain the scientific method.

Now, look at what creationists have been saying, directly, about the scientific method and the teaching of it. Look at the ways that school districts, including Cook County, Georgia and Dover, PA, have been manipulating the teaching of the scientific method. Re-read the Dover transcripts and see what creationists want to enforce as the presentation of the scientific method.

The creationists are attempting -- deliberately -- to interfere with what even you regard as the central lesson of "science" class, and you don't see the problem?

paximperium

15th July 2008, 01:27 PM

My point is that its been escalated to the point of hysteria. I'm not seeing what the doomsday result of a kid not being taught evolution in public school is?

I'm not seeing that too many kids can explain the scientific method. It seems to me that people confusing dispensing of information with education. Education to me is about metacognition and the details are pretty much not that important.

No. The issue is not the evolution is not being taught in school, the issue is that Creationists are purposefully attacking science.

Yes, all of science that disagrees with their beliefs. They attack physics, biology, geology, all of it. They attack the Scientific Method and make claims that "all of science if wrong because it keeps changing" or "that you can never know anything 100% with science".

How are any kids ever going to go into science if they are lambasted with such anti-science rhetoric in High school?

truethat

15th July 2008, 01:28 PM

What do you mean "big fear"? Half of America already denies evolution!

Statistics please!

I would wager that most people accept evolution in some form. The Creationists seem to accept microevolution as they distinguish it.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-pope-accepts-evolution.htm

I see the sarcasm is coming out by way of not accepting the reality that its not as big of a deal as people are making it.

I mean its not going to get to the point that its not taught in schools. Progress ruffles feathers and change pisses people off. Its just the way it is.

Gay marriage is going through. Just like I knew it would in spite of all the freaking out.

joobz

15th July 2008, 01:29 PM

Ok let me put this out there.

Take handwriting and going to the library to do research.

None of my children write cursive. You know why? Because the world has changed so much that the need for cursive has been replaced by a computer. Where I used to write in cursive for formal essays my kids now can type it on the computer.

But your kids are taught gammar? right?

I don't teach how to use a slide rule, a sling psychrometer, how to program pascal, ...
Technology and tools change. But teaching fundementals of science isn't the same as teaching an outdated technology (which is what your analogy suggests).

Roboramma

15th July 2008, 01:30 PM

On the one hand, truethat, you started this thread because you see a problem with the way that science is portrayed. On the other hand, it seems that when scientists and laymen alike see a problem with the way that others portray science, and thus similarly try to do something about that, you consider this to be wrong, or necessarily ideologically driven.

I think one of the reasons that we are concerned with creationism is what Neil DeGrass Tyson points to in this video:
3cQz1JTXzqc

Personally I think science is valuable, and if it's to continue to be done it requires public support. I don't suggest that we should mislead the public to gain that support, but certainly we should oppose those who blatantly attempt to remove science from our society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy).

You may disagree - you may think that this really isn't particularly important. That's cool. But I don't think that you can suggest that because we do consider it important, that shows that we are being influenced by a mythological viewpoint.

truethat

15th July 2008, 01:33 PM

No. The issue is not the evolution is not being taught in school, the issue is that Creationists are purposefully attacking science.

Yes, all of science that disagrees with their beliefs. They attack physics, biology, geology, all of it. They attack the Scientific Method and make claims that "all of science if wrong because it keeps changing" or "that you can never know anything 100% with science".

How are any kids ever going to go into science if they are lambasted with such anti-science rhetoric in High school?

That's a fair argument but I really also think you don't have kids. Most kids are no influenced in such a way as you seem to think.

Most kids reject what they are taught by their parents.

So you keep saying that Creationists attack science. Ok I don't see it as an attack but rather a Refusal to accept it. That's their loss. Isn't the whole point of Evolution survival of the fittest? If idiots keep going at this pace then their beliefs will be left behind.

Do you know how long people believed in Roman Gods? This Jesus trip is pretty mild in comparison.

truethat

15th July 2008, 01:35 PM

truethat

15th July 2008, 01:38 PM

But your kids are taught gammar? right?

I don't teach how to use a slide rule, a sling psychrometer, how to program pascal, ...
Technology and tools change. But teaching fundementals of science isn't the same as teaching an outdated technology (which is what your analogy suggests).

That's true but not really my point. My point is that education has broadened to include the internet.

The fights about what is taught in schools is soon going to be irrelevant because I think more and more people are going to opt for homeschooling any way.

What is taught in science should be foundations.

I don't see how biology couldn't be taught very well in public school without mentioning evolution.

Just teaching the function of the human body would take months. JUST the human body.

drkitten

15th July 2008, 01:41 PM

That's a fair argument but I really also think you don't have kids. Most kids are no influenced in such a way as you seem to think.

I think you'll find that the psychological studies of childrearing do NOT back you up.

Most kids reject what they are taught by their parents.

Yeah, that's why my kids keep speaking Swahili no matter how often I explain to them that I only speak English. :confused:

So you keep saying that Creationists attack science. Ok I don't see it as an attack but rather a Refusal to accept it. That's their loss.

Except it isn't.

If they refused to accept it, they would simply not be letting their children take high school biology, or perhaps homeschooling.

But they're going further. They're trying to re-write the rules on public education in order to interfere with what I can teach to your children.

It's one thing to not want to eat mushrooms on your pizza. It's another thing altogether for you to pick the toppings on the pizza I'm ordering and I'm going to eat.

It's one thing to decide to bicycle to work instead of drive. It's another altogether to try to outlaw driving.

Isn't the whole point of Evolution survival of the fittest?

Er, no. Aside from the fact that this is a misrepresentation of evolution, there's also the problem that evolution is NOT a moral theory -- otherwise we wouldn't have hospitals and would simply let the sick and weak get eaten by wolves.

If idiots keep going at this pace then their beliefs will be left behind.

Yes, but a lot of innocent people -- including my children and yours -- will be hurt because of what these "idiots" are trying to do.

Idiots who drive drunk tend to be left behind, too. But that doesn't mean they don't take others with them.

drkitten

15th July 2008, 01:43 PM

I don't see how biology couldn't be taught very well in public school without mentioning evolution.

Just teaching the function of the human body would take months. JUST the human body.

And how do you explain the background to the function? Just telling people about how the body works is the "trivial pursuit" version of biology. If you want to give enough background to contextualize function -- what the benefit of opposable thumbs or a lowered-voice box, for example -- you're back to evolution.

You may not see that biology can't be taught very well. Professional biology educators seem, almost unanimously, to disagree.

joobz

15th July 2008, 01:44 PM

That's true but not really my point. My point is that education has broadened to include the internet.

The fights about what is taught in schools is soon going to be irrelevant because I think more and more people are going to opt for homeschooling any way.

What is taught in science should be foundations.
What do you see as the foundations of science?

Molinaro

15th July 2008, 01:46 PM

So the question I pose is why does science use Narrative Language to explain these theories to the public?

Because actual science requires a science education as a background. You seem to have a problem not with science, but rather with news stories covering science.

If you don't want a watered down narrative, then don't read anything that is not an original paper published in a science journal.

paximperium

15th July 2008, 01:48 PM

That's a fair argument but I really also think you don't have kids. Most kids are no influenced in such a way as you seem to think.

Most kids reject what they are taught by their parents.

I don't believe you follow the Evolution Vs. Creationist. WAR...arrrgh!!!
Creationist are not just teaching it to their kids, they are attempting to teach their beliefs in school and attacking science in schools and Church.
I don't much care if they're only interested in teaching to their kids but they are having some "science" teachers attack science and teach Creationism in schools.

So you keep saying that Creationists attack science. Ok I don't see it as an attack but rather a Refusal to accept it. That's their loss. Isn't the whole point of Evolution survival of the fittest? If idiots keep going at this pace then their beliefs will be left behind.
No. It is an actual attack not just a refusal which is passive denial. By attacking, they are actively undermining science. They are going to Churches, legislatures and public halls and attacking science. They have hundreds of millions of dollars to fund their activities.

Do you know how long people believed in Roman Gods? This Jesus trip is pretty mild in comparison.
Does that include the Greek versions?

Foster Zygote

15th July 2008, 02:31 PM

Science isn't under attack. Evolution is under attack.
Evolution is science. That's like saying of the Blitz "Great Britain isn't under attack. London is under attack".

I don't think it would matter much at all if evolution wasn't taugh in schools and I certainly do think we can teach evolution without focusing on it.
Did you mean to say that we can teach biology without focusing on evolution? Or do you mean that we can teach evolution as something that is ancillary to the science of biology? In either case I strongly disagree. The theory of evolution by natural selection is central to modern biology. Any biology education that skips over it would be woefully incomplete.

Do you know how much time they spend on it in public school? Its a blip. There's so much more to science than evolution.
There is much more to mathematics than just addition.

Chemistry and physics and other such things. Frankly I think they teach too much in the public school and most kids don't understand it. I would think it would work better to focus on scientific method and teach that as a foundation and then just add a little detail.
So that kids could go on to college with an understanding of how science works, but absolutely no clue what scientists have learned from centuries of investigation? That's an excellent strategy if you want them to rediscover that the Earth is a sphere or make all the same mistakes that have long since been disproved and abandoned. The progress of science, as Newton noted, comes from standing on the shoulders of those who have come before you. The most important thing to learn about one's field or fields of study after the methodology is everything else that has proved fruitful, or a dead end, so far. Then one can hope to make new discoveries instead of rediscovering old ones.

The scientific method itself is rather simple compared to the complexity of what it has revealed to us. That, to me at least, is part of its beauty. There is no reason that a sound public school scientific curriculum cannot include the scientific method along with the core fundamentals of the various sciences. If fact, I would argue that both should be requirements for any sound science education.

What is the number one complaint of scientists? That the public doesn't understand how science works. Well I wonder why? Maybe because we don't focus enough on that.
That may or may not be the number one complaint of scientists. I'd be willing to bet that it comes second to funding. But at any rate, the lack of understanding of the scientific method is not a result of people knowing too much about what that method has taught us. If you want to argue that it is inadequate to teach scientific discoveries without also teaching the methodology used to arrive at those discoveries then I am with you 100%. But the scientific method is not so complex as to make it too much to ask that students also learn what its application has taught us. The answer to the "Kids don't know scientific methodology" complaint is not "Teach less science", but rather "Teach the methodology too".

joobz

15th July 2008, 03:28 PM

Evolution is science. That's like saying of the Blitz "Great Britain isn't under attack. London is under attack".

Did you mean to say that we can teach biology without focusing on evolution? Or do you mean that we can teach evolution as something that is ancillary to the science of biology? In either case I strongly disagree. The theory of evolution by natural selection is central to modern biology. Any biology education that skips over it would be woefully incomplete.

On my shelf, I have a "Biology" by Campbell. (3rd edition) (The latest is 7th).

Chapter 1: Introduction: Themes to the study of life.
Page 14

Evolution is the core theme of biology - a theme that will resurface in every unit of this [1190 page] text

cyborg

15th July 2008, 03:33 PM

Science isn't under attack: gravity is (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512).

Civilized Worm

15th July 2008, 03:57 PM

Statistics please!

I would wager that most people accept evolution in some form. The Creationists seem to accept microevolution as they distinguish it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

Roboramma

15th July 2008, 04:06 PM

No I don't think that at all. This thread has gone off topic. But since I finally started to get some answers about the anger I was intrigued.

Its not that I don't think science matters, or that it should not be taught in school. I'm pointing out that this hysteria is based on a fear of something that wouldn't really be that catyclismic if it happened.
Well, from my understanding of what you've said so far, you're saying that mythologizing science leads to this sort of "hysteria" and that's the problem with mythologizing science.

I don't see any reason to believe that the "hysteria" that you see is a product of the cause you attribute to it. And if it isn't, what problem do you have with mythologizing science? (under your definition of myth, of course)
There are at least two other options that I see:
1. That it stems from legitimate concerns (this is the one I think is true)
2. That it stems from illegitimate concerns.

That is, under option 2, you're right that the concerns aren't valid, but that still doesn't suggest that the "hysteria" is caused by mythologizing science.

Maybe I misinterpretted you in thinking that this is the problem that you have with mythical/narrative language used to describe science. If so, I apologise. I think, however, that that's what stemmed this digression about the problems with creationism. Moreover, if that isn't you're point, what is wrong with mythologizing science?
I think you've said that it reads to a sort of dogmatic religiousity. I just don't see that, and I don't think you've supplied any evidence that suggests that it's so.

Roboramma

15th July 2008, 04:09 PM

By the way, I think you'll find this video interesting, particularly around the 7:30-8 minute mark.
0Ai-VvboPnA
I think this is the sort of thing you're talking about.

arthwollipot

15th July 2008, 07:35 PM

Ok I could see that to some degree. But take a step back. Then take a further step back. Why is it that science has taken up with Creationists at all?Because creationists have taken it up with science.

...It would be like teaching english without teaching grammar...I never got a lick of grammar in high school English class. Not even the slightest bit. I once told my Latin teacher that I'd learned more about English in Latin than I did in English. My high school English was pretty much entirely literature. I'm just glad that I chose to study Latin so that I got some grammar. Otherwise I would have completely missed out.

That's a fair argument but I really also think you don't have kids. Most kids are no influenced in such a way as you seem to think.

Most kids reject what they are taught by their parents.That does not agree with my experience with my own children. Children absorb whatever they're exposed to. A large part of that is from the parents.

JoeTheJuggler

15th July 2008, 07:58 PM

I know this thread has moved on considerably, but I feel the need to respond.

But I worry that we are simply creating the new religion of Evolution.

The fact that there may sometimes in some cases be problems with how evolution is taught or explained does not make evolution anything like a religion. There are also plenty of educators and textbooks (even websites) that do a perfectly fine job of explaining evolution.

This "narrative language" issue doesn't happen in the peer reviewed journals much if at all.

Evolution is still evidence-based science. It is still self-correcting rather than dogmatic. Evolution is nothing like revealed truth. It is nothing like faith.

Oh I see!!! I didn't explain this correctly. Thank you for helping me clarify.

I'm not suggesting that SCIENCE is becoming like religion. Like I said, what is published in peer reviewed articles doesn't do this. And I don't think scientists themselves are people that are religious about their theories, some may be in a metaphorical sense.

I'm more talking along the lines of PUBLIC consumption and response to the narrative style used. The public is turning it into a myth, NOT the science community.

The public is turning it into a myth by responding to those forms of the "story" that use narrative language and mythical language, more so than the expository explanations.

The public is turning it into a myth and religion by getting emotionally vested in it being the right answer.

I just think Science is looking the other way because its nice to have minions bashing the Creationists for a change.

I disagree that the public is (or even can) turn evolution into a myth and religion. I agree that a portion of the public misunderstands evolution. (That would probably account for the fact that a substantial majority of the general public says that they don't believe in evolution as if it were a matter of belief.)

A substantial portion of the general public also has some confused ideas about and poor understanding of geography. Does this somehow make geography into a myth or religion?

truethat

15th July 2008, 08:51 PM

By the way, I think you'll find this video interesting, particularly around the 7:30-8 minute mark.
0Ai-VvboPnA
I think this is the sort of thing you're talking about.

Oh wow that is a GREAT example of what I'm talking about.

I'm not saying hysteria is the problem of the way science is turning to myth, I'm saying that its EVIDENCE that its turning to myth.

The reason I'm concerned and worries as I said, is that I feel that now we are protected from religious persecution by seperation of church and state.

But we are not under separation of science and state because that doesn't exist.

I worry that if the public continues to have these kinds of responses to Science that its going to become the venue for the next big "mythological" movement in this country, from which there will be no protection.

Way down the line of course. But it worries me.

truethat

15th July 2008, 08:56 PM

I know this thread has moved on considerably, but I feel the need to respond.

I disagree that the public is (or even can) turn evolution into a myth and religion. I agree that a portion of the public misunderstands evolution. (That would probably account for the fact that a substantial majority of the general public says that they don't believe in evolution as if it were a matter of belief.)

A substantial portion of the general public also has some confused ideas about and poor understanding of geography. Does this somehow make geography into a myth or religion?

I've got one word to explain what I mean

CLAYMATES

If you want to insist that the "public" can't turn something into a religion than how do you explain Clay Aiken?

His fans are insane about him. What they see and what some sane people see are two different things.

Let me ask you a question. How did RELIGION get so powerful in the world in the first place?

Think about it. Most people tend to think of it as a forced institution. People turning something into a religion has nothing to do with the validity or the falseness of the claim. Its based entirely on how people respond to it.

joobz

15th July 2008, 09:10 PM

I've got one word to explain what I mean

CLAYMATES

If you want to insist that the "public" can't turn something into a religion than how do you explain Clay Aiken?

His fans are insane about him. What they see and what some sane people see are two different things.

Let me ask you a question. How did RELIGION get so powerful in the world in the first place?

Think about it. Most people tend to think of it as a forced institution. People turning something into a religion has nothing to do with the validity or the falseness of the claim. Its based entirely on how people respond to it.
Certainly anything can be turned into a dogmatic item of worship. Even science. I reject and argument which claims we should derive our morality from science*. It would be like deriving our morality from a hammer.

But it doesn't logically follow that becuase science can be used for ill, that we must avoid teaching it in classrooms. I would argue that teaching it effectively teaching it in classrooms will minimize it's likelyhood of becoming an object of dogmatic worship. Afterall, the primary principles of the scientific method are at complete odds with dogma.

You could argue that the methodology could be looked at dogmatically, but that would be a bizarre (nonsensical) paradox. A dogmatic worship of being non-dogmatic in your world view is acceptable in my eyes.

*morality shouldn't be derived from science, but that doesn't mean we can't find/discover scientific origins of our morality. Steel is derived from iron which is derived from iron ore. But we do not look to iron ore to know how to shape and mold steel.

truethat

15th July 2008, 09:47 PM

Certainly anything can be turned into a dogmatic item of worship. Even science. I reject and argument which claims we should derive our morality from science*. It would be like deriving our morality from a hammer.

But it doesn't logically follow that becuase science can be used for ill, that we must avoid teaching it in classrooms. I would argue that teaching it effectively teaching it in classrooms will minimize it's likelyhood of becoming an object of dogmatic worship. Afterall, the primary principles of the scientific method are at complete odds with dogma.

You could argue that the methodology could be looked at dogmatically, but that would be a bizarre (nonsensical) paradox. A dogmatic worship of being non-dogmatic in your world view is acceptable in my eyes.

*morality shouldn't be derived from science, but that doesn't mean we can't find/discover scientific origins of our morality. Steel is derived from iron which is derived from iron ore. But we do not look to iron ore to know how to shape and mold steel.

I never said that at all. My responses in playing devil's advocate for not teaching evolution were merely to try to get people to recognize that what they fear is "Fear" more than any real threat, war or trumped up accusation that we must protect ourselves against the creationists at all costs.

Dogmatic worship is not just really really believing something. Dogmatic worship often includes violence and aggressiveness towards those with differing views and this is the problem.

You can say that you are fine with dogmatic worship of being non dogmatic but I think that's what a lot of people mistakenly think of as being open minded. Truthfully dogmatic worship is scarey no matter what your perspective or intention is.

joobz

15th July 2008, 11:40 PM

I never said that at all. My responses in playing devil's advocate for not teaching evolution were merely to try to get people to recognize that what they fear is "Fear" more than any real threat, war or trumped up accusation that we must protect ourselves against the creationists at all costs.
You said
I don't think it would matter much at all if evolution wasn't taugh in schools and I certainly do think we can teach evolution without focusing on it. Do you know how much time they spend on it in public school? Its a blip. There's so much more to science than evolution
Evolution is a core theory of biology. You can't teach biology without evolutionary theory.
Your solution was to not teach science. it's not a logical solution. And as Drkitten mentioned, to discredit evolutionary theory, would discredit multiple areas of non-biological science.

As a college professor, I see first hand the problems with failing to teach science in highschool. Your solution demonstrated that the attempts at not teaching evolution is indeed a threat. You failed to address all of the points raised.

1.) ill-preparing students for science/engineering/medical educations
2.) weakening of our country's working force on the world economic stage
3.) examples of other areas where science is under attack

Really, your only retort to most comments were "YOu must not have kids". This is a rather weak argument. It's a non sequitor, avoids addressing the content and has led you to make erroneous conclusions (e.g., that children don't learn from parents, and they learn more from the internet).

Your devil's advocate game only served to demonstrate that you haven't thought through the grave implications that the attack on evolution represents.

Dogmatic worship is not just really really believing something. Dogmatic worship often includes violence and aggressiveness towards those with differing views and this is the problem.yes it can lead to that, but it is not required. the vast majority of religious people are non violent. I do not understand your point.

You can say that you are fine with dogmatic worship of being non dogmatic but I think that's what a lot of people mistakenly think of as being open minded. Truthfully dogmatic worship is scarey no matter what your perspective or intention is.
My point is that being dogmatic about non-dogmatism is a goofy paradox that holds little meaning.
It would be like saying I'm extremely moderate.
or I'm violently passivist.
I'm actively inactive.

joobz

16th July 2008, 12:50 AM

I'm not posting any more here. I've proven my point though you wish to claim otherwise.this was the final comment on the "experiment' you started.

I can't help notice the irony of you claiming a desire to teach the "scientific method" and then start a thread to "prove a point" in the most unscientific ways possible.

1.) you poorly excuted the study
a.) didn't control for alternative explanations (anger not because of creationist but because of possible trolling, over generalization on a skeptical site)
b.) didn't actually post replies validating people's impressions
2.) Selectively collected data which supported your claims, but ignored all others.
a.) ignored reasonable requests for more information form the OP
b.) ignored most animosity was directed toward Plumjam who posted rather predictably arguments.
3.) Refused to accept critiques and claimed your conclusions proven. (avoidance of peer review)

Really, your entire "Experiment" proved nothing expect that you had a conclusion and saught data to support it (while ignoring all evidence to the contrary).

UnrepentantSinner

16th July 2008, 01:18 AM

Really, your entire "Experiment" proved nothing expect that you had a conclusion and saught data to support it (while ignoring all evidence to the contrary).

Hey. That's exactly how Creation Science works... well, except they don't actually do any experiments at all.

plumjam

16th July 2008, 03:09 AM

b.) ignored most animosity was directed toward Plumjam who posted rather predictably arguments.

yeah, I noticed that too ;)
BTW my arguments are predictable because they are concentrating on the main problems with the TOE.. which don't change very much; this because those problems just won't go away. If I was mainly presenting unpredictable arguments I'd probably be on the wrong track.

ETA: could people perhaps try to be civil to Truethat? She has made some good points, at least in this thread. I'm getting a premonition that she may not stick around long, which would be a shame.. and make the forum even more monocultural than it is already.

joobz

16th July 2008, 06:38 AM

yeah, I noticed that too ;)
BTW my arguments are predictable because they are concentrating on the main problems with the TOE.. which don't change very much; this because those problems just won't go away.
But this is utter nonsense. each of your "problems" isn't a problem at all and you've simply ignored any argument which explains "the problems".

Saying blahblahpoopydoop doesn't prove evolution wrong.

ETA: could people perhaps try to be civil to Truethat? She has made some good points, at least in this thread. I'm getting a premonition that she may not stick around long, which would be a shame.. and make the forum even more monocultural than it is already.certainly some haven't been, but the vast majority of posters have bee civil.
even in the other thread, many posts were civil towards her.

rocketdodger

16th July 2008, 07:40 AM

yeah, I noticed that too ;)
BTW my arguments are predictable because they are concentrating on the main problems with the TOE.. which don't change very much; this because those problems just won't go away. If I was mainly presenting unpredictable arguments I'd probably be on the wrong track.

BTW your arguments are predictable because they are concentrating on what you think are the main problems with the TOE.. which you don't change very much, even in the face of solid refutation; this because your ignorance just won't go away.

paximperium

16th July 2008, 07:45 AM

Hey plumjam, we're still waiting.
The Plumjam Purposefylly Unanswered Question List
1)Question from Joobz: "if you wish to claim that macroevolution is impossible and therefore TOE is impossible, we MUST define what it means to be macroevolution. Otherwise, all you are doing is creating an illusion and using that illusion to disprove evolution."
2)Question from MattusMaximus: "That is, you have made numerous insinuations that there is a vast, atheistic conspiracy to purge academia of theists who do not cater to what you call "Darwinist dogma". Please provide solid evidence of this claim - naming one specific case will do..."
3)Define the limits of these variations and the mechanism that prevents these variations from becoming larger over time.
4)Please present a valid alternative to Evolution that is testable and falsifiable.
5)Questions from Joobz: "what is macro-evolution? Is it similar to blahblahpoopydoop?"

plumjam

16th July 2008, 07:49 AM

But this is utter nonsense. each of your "problems" isn't a problem at all and you've simply ignored any argument which explains "the problems".
Quite funny. That you should deem the fact that the fossil record contradicts the TOE, plus the impossibility of even artificial selection creating new kinds of living forms.. as non-problems, just goes to show the extent of how people can become quasi-brainwashed by attachment to their current world-view.
[/QUOTE]

paximperium

16th July 2008, 07:57 AM

Quite funny. That you should deem the fact that the fossil record contradicts the TOE, plus the impossibility of even artificial selection creating new kinds of living forms.. as non-problems, just goes to show the extent of how people can become quasi-brainwashed by attachment to their current world-view.

ooooh...a new addition:
Hey plumjam, we're still waiting.
The Plumjam Purposefylly Unanswered Question List
1)Question from Joobz: "if you wish to claim that macroevolution is impossible and therefore TOE is impossible, we MUST define what it means to be macroevolution. Otherwise, all you are doing is creating an illusion and using that illusion to disprove evolution."
2)Question from MattusMaximus: "That is, you have made numerous insinuations that there is a vast, atheistic conspiracy to purge academia of theists who do not cater to what you call "Darwinist dogma". Please provide solid evidence of this claim - naming one specific case will do..."
3)Define the limits of these variations and the mechanism that prevents these variations from becoming larger over time.
4)Please present a valid alternative to Evolution that is testable and falsifiable.
5)Questions from Joobz: "what is macro-evolution? Is it similar to blahblahpoopydoop?"
6)In what way does the fossil record contradict evolution? (please, please, please use your prior Creationist list of garbage that we showed to be dishonest misquoted Creationist propaganda)
7)Define "living forms".

joobz

16th July 2008, 08:50 AM

plumjam

16th July 2008, 08:56 AM

It's a strange thing you keep doing. you mimic the processes of rational arguments, but fail to actually produce the evidence which would substantiate the argument. All requests that I've made for you to do so have gone unanswered.

Your argument is identical to a hollywood movie set. from the right angle it looks real, but any close inspection reveals it's all a facade.

Perhaps you missed the quotes from the many experts regarding the fossil record.
Perhaps you are incapable of understanding the difference between a horse and a cactus.

There is really nothing terribly complicated for you to try to understand. With the fossils the experts are telling you (and have been for over a century) that the evidence contradicts evolution. With genetic barriers thousands of years of human experience both outside and inside the laboratory are telling you that the evolution theory is wrong.
You only resist this because of faith.

paximperium

16th July 2008, 08:57 AM

It's a strange thing you keep doing. you mimic the processes of rational arguments, but fail to actually produce the evidence which would substantiate the argument. All requests that I've made for you to do so have gone unanswered.

Your argument is identical to a hollywood movie set. from the right angle it looks real, but any close inspection reveals it's all a facade.

He's play acting, attempting to seem like a critical thinker or even pseudo-intellectual when in fact he comes off sounding stupid and dishonest.

If Creationists just say they believe because they believe, there would be less of an issue. But no, they have to seem pseudo-scientific so they wouldn't seem unjustified in their beliefs.

paximperium

16th July 2008, 09:01 AM

Perhaps you missed the quotes from the many experts regarding the fossil record.
Perhaps you are incapable of understanding the difference between a horse and a cactus.

There is really nothing terribly complicated for you to try to understand. With the fossils the experts are telling you (and have been for over a century) that the evidence contradicts evolution. With genetic barriers thousands of years of human experience both outside and inside the laboratory are telling you that the theory is wrong.
You only resist this because of faith.
Oooh, you mean this post where you were caught lying and misquoting all those experts that you respect so much?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117819&page=3
BTW:
Why did you purposefully misquote all those individuals out of context in your quote dump?
Did you actually read any of those papers or books or did you copy and paste from a Creationist website?
Why did you not properly cite the Creationist website you got those quotes from?

D'rok

16th July 2008, 09:07 AM

If Creationists just say they believe because they believe, there would be less of an issue. But no, they have to seem pseudo-scientific so they wouldn't seem unjustified in their beliefs.

IMO, this is exactly right. I can respect intellectual honesty even if I think the beliefs are silly. If a Creationist said (and some do) that "I have no evidence for my belief and science contradicts me, but I believe because I have faith in my God", that would be that. Mr. Creationist and I could probably go have a beer and watch the game.

joobz

16th July 2008, 09:24 AM

Perhaps you missed the quotes from the many experts regarding the fossil record.
This is dishonest. You know full well I responded to that post.
Perhaps you are incapable of understanding the difference between a horse and a cactus.[/quote]
I do know the difference. Genetically, phenotypically, and evolutionarily. funny how all those elements agree with each other in a predictable/testable fashion.

remember, You still have failed to address answering my simple questions. Your critiques of evolution amount to pure ignorance.

There is really nothing terribly complicated for you to try to understand. With the fossils the experts are telling you (and have been for over a century) that the evidence contradicts evolution. With genetic barriers thousands of years of human experience both outside and inside the laboratory are telling you that the evolution theory is wrong.
You only resist this because of faith.
Wrong. You claim to know what the laboratory research is, but you obviously have never bothered to read it.

plumjam

16th July 2008, 09:52 AM

This is dishonest. You know full well I responded to that post.
So the dishonesty was on your part then; when you said I hadn't presented any evidence.

I do know the difference. Genetically, phenotypically, and evolutionarily. funny how all those elements agree with each other in a predictable/testable fashion.

remember, You still have failed to address answering my simple questions. Your critiques of evolution amount to pure ignorance.

Wrong. You claim to know what the laboratory research is, but you obviously have never bothered to read it.
You may try to obfuscate a simple and damning problem by alluding vaguely to research, or your level of knowledge on some subjects.
That doesn't help you out.
What would help you out is a convincing evolutionary explanation of how the application of prolonged intensive artificial selection has never succeeded in crossing particular limits when applied to all life forms so tested.
The only "explanation" I've heard so far is 'lack of time', which is hiding in irrefutability.

paximperium

16th July 2008, 09:57 AM

So the dishonesty was on your part then; when you said I hadn't presented any evidence.
Joobz...do you believe this?
Even when his dishonesty is thrown in his face, he is actually attempting a very childish attempt at reverse psychology by claiming that his misquotes and lies are "evidence".
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117819&page=3

So Plumster:
Why did you purposefully misquote all those individuals out of context in your quote dump?
Did you actually read any of those papers or books or did you copy and paste from a Creationist website?
Why did you not properly cite the Creationist website you got those quotes from?

You may try to obfuscate a simple and damning problem by alluding vaguely to research, or your level of knowledge on some subjects.
That doesn't help you out.
What would help you out is a convincing evolutionary explanation of how the application of prolonged intensive artificial selection has never succeeded in crossing particular limits when applied to all life forms so tested.
The only "explanation" I've heard so far is 'lack of time', which is hiding in irrefutability.
The Plumjam Purposefylly Unanswered Question List
1)Question from Joobz: "if you wish to claim that macroevolution is impossible and therefore TOE is impossible, we MUST define what it means to be macroevolution. Otherwise, all you are doing is creating an illusion and using that illusion to disprove evolution."
2)Question from MattusMaximus: "That is, you have made numerous insinuations that there is a vast, atheistic conspiracy to purge academia of theists who do not cater to what you call "Darwinist dogma". Please provide solid evidence of this claim - naming one specific case will do..."
3)Define the limits of these variations and the mechanism that prevents these variations from becoming larger over time.
4)Please present a valid alternative to Evolution that is testable and falsifiable.
5)Questions from Joobz: "what is macro-evolution? Is it similar to blahblahpoopydoop?"
6)In what way does the fossil record contradict evolution? (please, please, please use your prior Creationist list of garbage that we showed to be dishonest misquoted Creationist propaganda)
7)Define "living forms".

joobz

16th July 2008, 10:06 AM

So the dishonesty was on your part then; when you said I hadn't presented any evidence.
This is a bit bizarre. Do you actually believe quotemining is a valid argument?

If you remember the end of our conversation previously was when you refused to define your terms. You made the claim that macroevolution is impossible.

I asked to explain what macroevolution is, so that we may test that claim. You've refused claiming I was applying a socratic reductionist argument. I went further to explain why that wasn't the case and even made a post in this thread that further explained that point. Instead of actually addressing this, you've simply ignored it.

I admit when I've been wrong. In this instance, I'm not. you are applying rather dishonest debate tactics. It's beneathe you. Please stop.

You may try to obfuscate a simple and damning problem by alluding vaguely to research, or your level of knowledge on some subjects. This is a lie. I have presented multiple detailed examples of arguments and supporting them with evidence. I do not need to post them in every single post just so that you can ignore them.

That doesn't help you out.
Physcian, heal thyself.
What would help you out is a convincing evolutionary explanation of how the application of prolonged intensive artificial selection has never succeeded in crossing particular limits when applied to all life forms so tested.
The only "explanation" I've heard so far is 'lack of time', which is hiding in irrefutability.
What Limits??????????
You have still failed to answer this question.

It's like I'm on the worst game show ever. "Guess which number I'm thinking of!"

"is it 12."
"No!"
"What number was it?"
"Well, that's all the time we have today on Guess which number I'm thinking of!!"

joobz

16th July 2008, 10:12 AM

You may try to obfuscate a simple and damning problem by alluding vaguely to research, or your level of knowledge on some subjects.
That doesn't help you out.
perhaps you missed this the other two times I posted it to you?

Is that the same "real life" that provides the evidentiary support for the theory of evolution?

Do you have a counter hypothesis that would explain the anamolies in human chromosome 2 which make it appear as though it was a fusion of two seperate ape chromosomes?
Why does this chromosome has an additional centromere and telemores in the middle of the chromosome?
why does chromosome 2 look like a fusion to chromosome 12 and chromosome 13?
Why can we not find similar evidence when comparing human chromosomes with those of Dogs, cats, plants?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human))

BXdQRvSdLAs
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/PP.Chrom.Fus3.ppt (http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/PP.Chrom.Fus3.ppt)
do you feel that this is an example of me " alluding vaguely to research, or my level of knowledge on some subjects"?

Civilized Worm

16th July 2008, 10:17 AM

Perhaps you missed the quotes from the many experts regarding the fossil record.
Perhaps you are incapable of understanding the difference between a horse and a cactus.

There is really nothing terribly complicated for you to try to understand. With the fossils the experts are telling you (and have been for over a century) that the evidence contradicts evolution. With genetic barriers thousands of years of human experience both outside and inside the laboratory are telling you that the evolution theory is wrong.
You only resist this because of faith.

You mean the fossil experts who accept evolution? The ones who's quotes you took from a creationist website that had already taken them out of context? Those fossil experts?

Civilized Worm

16th July 2008, 10:19 AM

By the way, does anyone have any knowledge of the percentage evolution denial among paleantologists? I'm assuming it must be very high given how the fossil record so blatantly contradicts evolution.

plumjam

16th July 2008, 10:29 AM

perhaps you missed this the other two times I posted it to you?

do you feel that this is an example of me " alluding vaguely to research, or my level of knowledge on some subjects"?

In case you forgot, you already posted that youtube to me some months ago during a discussion.
Nothing in it pertains to the subject we are discussing i.e. the failure of human beings to artificially select a life form to such a degree that creates new forms of life. To do so would demonstrate the enormous plasticity which the TOE requires life to have.. but, as experimental failure demonstrates, life does not have that degree of plasticity.

You can present evidence, but please tailor it to what we are talking about.

joobz

16th July 2008, 10:37 AM

In case you forgot, you already posted that youtube to me some months ago during a discussion.
Nothing in it pertains to the subject we are discussing i.e. the failure of human beings to artificially select a life form to such a degree that creates new forms of life.
Ok. We'll ignore that point for now (it's the exact proof of humans having common ancestry with great apes).

If what you said is the question you want answered, let's see if we can answer it.

In order to do so, we'll need to understand what you mean. Explain what how different two entities must be to be considered a whole new life form.

Civilized Worm

16th July 2008, 10:40 AM

I find it strange that when it comes to evolution people demand to be able to see it happen right then and there or else it couldn't have happened at all. No one refuses to believe continental drift because a geologist can't make move a continent a mile on demand, and no one* expects Stephen Hawking to grow a black hole in a test tube.

*Well, one exception comes to mind.

plumjam

16th July 2008, 10:45 AM

This is a bit bizarre. Do you actually believe quotemining is a valid argument?

If you remember the end of our conversation previously was when you refused to define your terms. You made the claim that macroevolution is impossible.

I asked to explain what macroevolution is, so that we may test that claim. You've refused claiming I was applying a socratic reductionist argument. I went further to explain why that wasn't the case and even made a post in this thread that further explained that point. Instead of actually addressing this, you've simply ignored it.

I admit when I've been wrong. In this instance, I'm not. you are applying rather dishonest debate tactics. It's beneathe you. Please stop.

This is a lie. I have presented multiple detailed examples of arguments and supporting them with evidence. I do not need to post them in every single post just so that you can ignore them.

Physcian, heal thyself.

What Limits??????????
You have still failed to answer this question.

It's like I'm on the worst game show ever. "Guess which number I'm thinking of!"

"is it 12."
"No!"
"What number was it?"
"Well, that's all the time we have today on Guess which number I'm thinking of!!"

As I have already said, the limits will likely be tied to the sum total of, and the character of, the information in the genome of that particular kind of life form. As neither natural selection of mutations nor sexual recombination of the DNA add any new, positive, information to the genome of the kind of life form in question then the limits of its plasticity will be defined by what is already in the genome.
For a more accurate definition of the specific limitations you would have to ask geneticists. My impression is that they wouldn't be able to give you an answer. So to keep demanding an answer from me is a bit unreasonable.
So there is the nitpicky part of it.

The easy-to-understand common-sensical version of the above is simply that you never get anything from a dog that isn't a dog.
That people keep quibbling with this obvious and basic fact about life is just more evidence that people get led astray in all sorts of bizarre ways by attachment to pet theories.

plumjam

16th July 2008, 10:56 AM

Ok. We'll ignore that point for now (it's the exact proof of humans having common ancestry with great apes).

If what you said is the question you want answered, let's see if we can answer it.

In order to do so, we'll need to understand what you mean. Explain what how different two entities must be to be considered a whole new life form.

Some examples: peach, beetle, parrot, rose, zebra, anaconda, sardine, dandelion, anemone, octopus, flea, dolphin, sheep, wheat, platypus.
If you could get from any of the above, via artificial or natural selection, to any of the others, then that would be a good demonstration of the plasticity of life.. which is absolutely vital to the TOE.
As I've explained, a detailed definition is not necessary in order to be able to recognise different forms of life. If 5 year olds can do it why can't evolutionary scientists?

Foster Zygote

16th July 2008, 11:09 AM

Perhaps you missed the quotes from the many experts regarding the fossil record.

This is just ridiculous. I'm beginning to suspect that this is just a contrarian game for you. Why else would you go back to a line of "evidence" that has been shown to be fatally flawed? The quote-mines that you obviously obtained from creationist sources (you still have not provided the source, by the way) have been shown to say nothing like what you are claiming.

In bold is the text from the quote-mines. The rest shows the extent that the authors were deliberately misrepresented.

In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or
punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of
evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that
the theory of evolution is unproven.

So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have
traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the
"fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The
three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from
biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy.

"Who Doubts Evolution", New Scientist, Vol. 90, No: 1259, June 25, 1981. page 831

The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. St. George Mivart (1871), Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the dilemma of "the incipient stages of useful structures" -- of what possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediate stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned "for" insulation and later "for" the trapping of insect prey (Ostrom 1979) a proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.

I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never existed. I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs, complete in all their complex and integrated features -- a fantasy that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating new models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws? Such a change would scarcely establish the Bauplan of the gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction of agnathan design -- the building of a true shoulder girdle with bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated modifications."

Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pp. 126-127

That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, troubled by the stubbornness of the fossil record in refusing to yield abundant examples of gradual change, devoted two chapters to the fossil record. To preserve his argument he was forced to assert that the fossil record was too incomplete, too full of gaps, to produce the expected patterns of change. He prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis--that evolutionary change is gradual and progressive--would be vindicated. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.
The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.

Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (Columbia University Press, 1982), pp. 47-48

I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you first posted those quotes because I figured it was highly unlikely that you had actually researched the sources. But now that you have been clearly shown that the author's statements have been deliberately misrepresented, and you have continued to perpetuate that misrepresentation you have come to be a part owner of that lie yourself.

joobz

16th July 2008, 11:15 AM

As I have already said, the limits will likely be tied to the sum total of, and the character of, the information in the genome of that particular kind of life form. As neither natural selection of mutations nor sexual recombination of the DNA add any new, positive, information to the genome of the kind of life form in question then the limits of its plasticity will be defined by what is already in the genome.

Well, in the bolded section, you claim that natural section, recombination (or any evoutionary mechanism) can add new genetic information.
This is a concrete claim.
unfortunately, it is not true. There has been evidence for genetic information increase

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

For a more accurate definition of the specific limitations you would have to ask geneticists. My impression is that they wouldn't be able to give you an answer. So to keep demanding an answer from me is a bit unreasonable.
So there is the nitpicky part of it.
Well, in fact geneticists do have an answer and can give proof that genetic information increases. Your impression is simply wrong and demosntrates a lack of knowledge about the subject.

The easy-to-understand common-sensical version of the above is simply that you never get anything from a dog that isn't a dog.
That people keep quibbling with this obvious and basic fact about life is just more evidence that people get led astray in all sorts of bizarre ways by attachment to pet theories.
well, we define things (such as a dog) being not a dog as species.

We can define species by multiple methods, but one of the most obvious ones is sexual incompatibilty. A species is distinct and different, if seperate members of the two groups can't produce fertile sexual offspring.

Indeed, we've seen this occur in labs.
Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.

drkitten

16th July 2008, 11:26 AM

As neither natural selection of mutations nor sexual recombination of the DNA add any new, positive, information to the genome of the kind of life form in question then the limits of its plasticity will be defined by what is already in the genome.

This is simply wrong. Any mutation is highly likely to add information, and gene duplication events, which are well-documented, add substantial information.

I could even show you the math and demonstrate exactly how much information is added (in a typical point mutation, about 1 bit and change of information is added; in a gene duplication event, it depends on the information content of the gene). Since gene duplication events can involve an arbitrary number of genes, it's legitimate to say that the amount of information added by a single event could be megabytes or gigabytes.

For a more accurate definition of the specific limitations you would have to ask geneticists.

I have. In fact, I have one two doors down from my office. He says you're wrong.

My impression is that they wouldn't be able to give you an answer.

Why? I can give you an answer -- "there is no limitation as you suggest."

So to keep demanding an answer from me is a bit unreasonable.

Only because the position you hold is unreasonable.

The easy-to-understand common-sensical version of the above is simply that you never get anything from a dog that isn't a dog.
That people keep quibbling with this obvious and basic fact about life is just more evidence that people get led astray in all sorts of bizarre ways by attachment to pet theories.

That's because it's neither "basic," nor "obvious," nor "a fact."

joobz

16th July 2008, 11:32 AM

Some examples: peach, beetle, parrot, rose, zebra, anaconda, sardine, dandelion, anemone, octopus, flea, dolphin, sheep, wheat, platypus.
If you could get from any of the above, via artificial or natural selection, to any of the others, then that would be a good demonstration of the plasticity of life.. which is absolutely vital to the TOE.
Hmm, no, that wouldn't demontrate that. To demosntrate the plasiticity of life, we would need to show the mechanisms that allow for that plascticity.

We would need to show
1.) new gene creation
2.) new phenotype ability
3.) sexual isolation of groups.

We can see the genetic relationship of all those species both in a phenotypic way and a genetic way. We can trace the evolutioary tree of persistent enzymes (e.g., superoxide dismutase) and it's genetic variability patterns the evolutionary tree.

As I've explained, a detailed definition is not necessary in order to be able to recognise different forms of life. If 5 year olds can do it why can't evolutionary scientists?You've asked for proof of plasticity, I provided it.

What is required now is proof that that plasticity stops at some point preventing further change.

Similarly, if I start with
n = 1
and then continually run
n=n+1
you would need to give a testable reason why n could never become 1,111,111,111,112

paximperium

16th July 2008, 11:57 AM

To those who are still following this wonderful thread,you will notice a few things:
1)All of plumjam's arguments revolves a very small number of arguments
2)He never defines what he is arguing
3)He ignores anything that contradicts his argument

You will notice that every argument he uses falls within this wonder list. He has not made a new argument since this list was first formed.

The Plumjam Purposefylly Unanswered Question List
1)Question from Joobz: "if you wish to claim that macroevolution is impossible and therefore TOE is impossible, we MUST define what it means to be macroevolution. Otherwise, all you are doing is creating an illusion and using that illusion to disprove evolution."
2)Question from MattusMaximus: "That is, you have made numerous insinuations that there is a vast, atheistic conspiracy to purge academia of theists who do not cater to what you call "Darwinist dogma". Please provide solid evidence of this claim - naming one specific case will do..."

3)Define the limits of these variations and the mechanism that prevents these variations from becoming larger over time.
Notice that despite all this talk about "plasticity" and information, that he has not defined the limits of change possible and whenever he describes the mechanism, he does a hand waving motion and states "the geneticists must know but don't really" He is the consummate pseudo-scientists wannabe and a terrible one at that.

4)Please present a valid alternative to Evolution that is testable and falsifiable.
5)Questions from Joobz: "what is macro-evolution? Is it similar to blahblahpoopydoop?"
6)In what way does the fossil record contradict evolution? (please, please, please use your prior Creationist list of garbage that we showed to be dishonest misquoted Creationist propaganda)
7)Define "living forms".

joobz

16th July 2008, 12:08 PM

In no other area of science do you see a war like this and while its really easy to blame it all on the Creationists, its really not that cut and dry when you take a step back.

At least from my vantage point its become the war of two stories. Science is not really part of why people are angry.

not true.
I've heard from some schools that Algebra isn't required of the common person, so we should stop requiring it for graduation.
Algebra!!!

ETA: Example 2:There is also attacks going on against Medicine as well. People levee the critique of, "science doens't know everything" and therefore claim that some herbal remedy is good. This kind of irrational, illogical thinking poses a HUGE public health risk.

Example 3: Ben Stein famously said, "science leads to killing people."

Just to provide another example, here's the OP of another thread started today.
What do you make of the comments below?

«Hi!
> Have you ever seen Western medicine cure anything? At best it
just surpresses symptoms until you get well or die.

In all my years of living I have NEVER seen Western medicine cure
anything at all. Unfortunately, I have seen it kill or severely weaken
many...including loved ones. Actor Dirk Benedict (A-Team, Battlestar
Galactica, etc.) said it this way : " If every doctor in America
dropped dead tomorrow, the health of all people would improve
drastically and immediately ". I don't think Dirk was too fond of the
medical establishment.

Very Best Wishes

Speaking for myself here, I am not categorically saying that Eastern
medicine is great and Western medicine is horrible, my point is that I
don't believe that any method that employs chemically toxic medication
and drugs, along with poisonous diagnostic methods can be of any
benefit to the body, mind, or spirit. It can only degenerate the
person receiving the treatments. This is the approach that
conventional western medicine is taking. That is not advancment. I
have this view toward anyone who uses this approach including the
eastern ways. Overall though, it seems that the east leans more
toward wholistic tendencies where the west is aggressively strong on
drugs, surgury, and other techniques not so wholistic. The western
medical establishment operates through intimidation and
fear...i.e. "do what we say or you will die". There is absolutely no
compassion involved in western medicine. It is a "closed club" that
is dedicate to keeping its citizens as sick and unhealthy as
possible. They have to because it is how they make their money. If
the population is healthy no one will vist doctors or hospitals....but
if they are continually sick and diseased they will keep giving money
to the medical establishment enabling them to thrive. Doctors cannot
pay their bills or feed their family if you are healthy, but they can
live a very comfortable life if you remain sick and unhealthy. So
what do you think they are working on...to keep you sick or
healthy ????

The attack on science and by extention reason isn't just on evolution and it is a big deal. The solutions to our major global problems (e.g., food, energy, global warming) are going to come from science.

truethat

16th July 2008, 12:51 PM

REGROUP

First of all I want to thank everyone for helping me figure out what I'm trying to say. I've been trying to have this conversation for years now and have not been able to make it clear because of the language required and because of the preconceived notions of Creationsits and that debate.

So lets try again.

First PLUMJAM take it outside!!!!!!! This thread is not about the SCIENCE of Evolution. Could everyone please stop derailing this with that same old same old argument. Bottom line, if you don't think Evolution is the real deal its because you don't understand how it works. Debating an issue means first understanding it. So go do your homework and then come back and admit you were wrong. Could everyone please drop that debate in this thread!!! Thanks.

Next.

I realized that I made an error in communicating my point in that I seem to have suggested that the problem is coming from the science community. I realize that's not the problem.

I believe that the problem stems from the general public that is turning from Creationism and is receiving and processing the Evolution theories by responding to them on a mythic level.

In other words the public is turning Evolutionary Narrative into the myth of the modern man. The public is replacing Creationism with Evolution as a myth. The popularity of Evolutionary Art and television shows that present Origins and Big Bang theories seem to me a step into myth.

There are scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson who are having the same reaction and are also pushing things in that direction but I don't think Science would do this. I think this goes against science.

Roborama's clip of deGrasse Tyson is an excellent example of what I mean. The public is responding to the hard science on an emotional level and accepting this story as a sacred story and one that explains our origins.

The anger and backlash in the public is a result of this tapping into the mythic language in the human experience.

I really want to thank everyone for sorting this out with me because I've tried for many years to explain what I mean. In those years I've watched as my intuition regarding this issue was proved correct more and more and more.

Finally I'd like to point out that the digression into evolution in the schools was NOT about for me the issue of it being taught or the validity of science. It was ONLY about my observation that the level of panic attached to the idea of it not being taught in school was far too extreme for what the worst case scenario of it not being taught would result in.

I DO think it should be taught in schools and that it is a necessary part of science. But I don't understand the widespride hatred of Creationists and attack mode.

I would appreciate if you all would let me know if I'm making my point clear. You've all helped me way more than most threads I've tried like this. Even if you don't agree with me, if you could let me know if I've made it clear what I'm saying I'd be so grateful.

Cheers :pirateflag

drkitten

16th July 2008, 01:02 PM

I believe that the problem stems from the general public that is turning from Creationism and is receiving and processing the Evolution theories by responding to them on a mythic level.

In other words the public is turning Evolutionary Narrative into the myth of the modern man. The public is replacing Creationism with Evolution as a myth. The popularity of Evolutionary Art and television shows that present Origins and Big Bang theories seem to me a step into myth.

I still fail to see the difference that you're trying do draw between description of processes (which is not only acceptable, but must be necessary if one is trying to present a process in an understandable way), and "narrative" and/or "myth" which is somehow bad.

I mean, as simple a structure as "first, this happened; then, that happened" is technically a narrative. It is also obviously an oversimplification as trillions of other things happened before, during, and since. (Cf. your proposed quotation : "While a story just is a sequence of events, a narrative recounts those events, perhaps leaving some occurrences out because they are from some perspective insignificant, and perhaps emphasizing others." That's simply unavoidable. Similarly, "a telling of some true or fictitious event or connected sequence of events ... in which the events are selected and arranged in a particular order (the plot).” ANY TIME you have two or more objects, they are arranged in a particular order. It is not possible to have two events separated in space-time that are not so arranged. And if the events are timelike separated, then there's even an inherent chronological order. Is the universe itself a narrator?)

I don't see any other way of saying "pull the pin BEFORE you throw the grenade" that doesn't fall into "narrative." Yes, I can put effect before cause, or cause before effect -- but either constitutes "a particular order."

cyborg

16th July 2008, 01:37 PM

Well, in the bolded section, you claim that natural section, recombination (or any evoutionary mechanism) can add new genetic information.
This is a concrete claim.
unfortunately, it is not true. There has been evidence for genetic information increase

Basic reasoning shows it to be nonsense.

X has information content 1.
X becomes Y by transformation T and has information content 0.
Y becomes X by transformation T-1 and has information content 1.

Therefore to show that "no mutation, recombination," etc.. - i.e. change in the genome - can increase information either:

1) Any change that decreases information cannot be undone (if it could there would be changes that can increase information)
2) Every change leaves information exactly the same

2 is clearly a waste of time for the argument and 1 leaves the problem that it's going to be pretty hard to show that no mutation can be undone since two complementary point mutations will achieve that easily.

But the real point here is that anyone who spews this argument won't have wasted a single neuron actually considering how to meaningfully talk about information increase or decrease.

Have you plumjam?

truethat

16th July 2008, 02:43 PM

I still fail to see the difference that you're trying do draw between description of processes (which is not only acceptable, but must be necessary if one is trying to present a process in an understandable way), and "narrative" and/or "myth" which is somehow bad.

I mean, as simple a structure as "first, this happened; then, that happened" is technically a narrative. It is also obviously an oversimplification as trillions of other things happened before, during, and since. (Cf. your proposed quotation : "While a story just is a sequence of events, a narrative recounts those events, perhaps leaving some occurrences out because they are from some perspective insignificant, and perhaps emphasizing others." That's simply unavoidable. Similarly, "a telling of some true or fictitious event or connected sequence of events ... in which the events are selected and arranged in a particular order (the plot).” ANY TIME you have two or more objects, they are arranged in a particular order. It is not possible to have two events separated in space-time that are not so arranged. And if the events are timelike separated, then there's even an inherent chronological order. Is the universe itself a narrator?)

I don't see any other way of saying "pull the pin BEFORE you throw the grenade" that doesn't fall into "narrative." Yes, I can put effect before cause, or cause before effect -- but either constitutes "a particular order."

You can't see the forrest for the trees my friend. The issue is not a debate over Narrative versus Exposition.

The point is that the elevation of this "sequence of events" into the realm of myth by the use of Narrative language and emotional attachment to the events by the persons hearing the story.

So lets say "Pull the pin before you throw the grenade" is exposition.

Exposition

In detonating a hand grenade one must remember to pull the pin before throwing.

Narrative

As a soldier it is essential that you remember to pull the pin before throwing the grenade or it will not be able to help you defeat the enemy.

But as I said you are focusing too much on the point of Narrative Language. The actual language I am referring to is "MYTHIC" language. I didn't use that term in this thread because most people don't understand what MYTHIC language or myth means and so they snap to deciding that I am saying evolution is false. Thereafter no matter how many times I insist that's not what I was saying it is not accepted.

You can see the same sort of reaction to the evolution in schools aspects in this thread.

truethat

16th July 2008, 02:57 PM

Perhaps this makes more sense. I'm sorry I'm not being clear.

I see a difference in the regular Narrative of Science and the Evolutionary Narrative in that we aim to know the unknowable.

I fail to see (and this might be how I differ with others) how we can really claim that we KNOW anything about the past when it comes to things like "behavior of animals." Lets just stick with that.

Walking with the Dinosaurs for example is science fiction presented as science. There is the insinuation that most of the stories in the film are deduced scientifically and thus it represents a sort of authority. I believe this confuses the public. I also believe that the public "eats these stories up" they are enormously popular. I believe they are so popular because they are modern myths.

Does that make it more clear?

truethat

16th July 2008, 03:01 PM

Just to provide another example, here's the OP of another thread started today.

The attack on science and by extention reason isn't just on evolution and it is a big deal. The solutions to our major global problems (e.g., food, energy, global warming) are going to come from science.

I agree with the post that you quotes in some ways. There is a difference between Western medicine and Eastern medicine in its approach. Why do you say that you don't consider Eastern medicine "science?"

quixotecoyote

16th July 2008, 03:05 PM

-deleted, this was the lead in to a planned post that dr. kitten already made-

drkitten

16th July 2008, 03:13 PM

You can't see the forrest for the trees my friend.

Um, I'm not the one using words that I'm refusing to define.

But as I said you are focusing too much on the point of Narrative Language. The actual language I am referring to is "MYTHIC" language. I didn't use that term in this thread because most people don't understand what MYTHIC language or myth means.

Well, that's good. So now you're saying that the distinction you've been defending for four pages isn't worth defending and you want to introduce a new term that you are incapable of defining?

Many of the participants on this thread are professional science educators. Many of us have a deep and abiding personal interest in increasing the overall level of science education.

Stories are used in education because they work. If you think that education would be improved by taking the story-elements out of it,... well, you're simply wrong. As I pointed out several times, it's not simply that the education would be weakened, but that it's literally impossible to describe a process without "recounting events" "in a particular order."

Even in the example you give, the "narrative" version is actually better pedagogy because it makes it clear how the hearer is "embodied" into the process and the reason for it.

D'rok

16th July 2008, 03:15 PM

I fail to see (and this might be how I differ with others) how we can really claim that we KNOW anything about the past when it comes to things like "behavior of animals." Lets just stick with that.

I think that pretty much nails it.

Walking with the Dinosaurs for example is science fiction presented as science. There is the insinuation that most of the stories in the film are deduced scientifically and thus it represents a sort of authority. I believe this confuses the public. I also believe that the public "eats these stories up" they are enormously popular. I believe they are so popular because they are modern myths.

Suppose we were to concede the bolded point. (I'm not convinced - in what way are these "sacred narratives"? - but whatever). Let's say Walking with Dinosaurs is a modern myth. We all agree that mythic narratives are appealing to most people, right? So, as per your point about past animal behaviour, your objection seems to be that these types of modern myths are false. My understanding (limited to undegrad classes on myth and symbol) is that the truth or falsity of myths is not a relevant consideration - i.e., academically speaking, it's not valid to criticize myths for being false. Myths are not defined as false stories.

So the question seems to be, assumming a particular modern myth is true (just assume truth for the sake of argument), would you still object to knowledge presented in that fashion?

joobz

16th July 2008, 03:24 PM

I agree with the post that you quotes in some ways. There is a difference between Western medicine and Eastern medicine in its approach. Why do you say that you don't consider Eastern medicine "science?"
Well for starters much of eastern medicine isn't built upon peer reviewed, hypothesis driven research. And much of it would fail to perform under double-blinded placebo controlled trials.

Second. Eastern medicines can be quite poisoness. And our health centers are on continual alert because of people taking these "alternative cures".
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/lead/lead-herbalmed.shtml

But this isn't what I consider most appalling.

In all my years of living I have NEVER seen Western medicine cure
anything at all. Unfortunately, I have seen it kill or severely weaken
many...including loved ones. Actor Dirk Benedict (A-Team, Battlestar
Galactica, etc.) said it this way : " If every doctor in America
dropped dead tomorrow, the health of all people would improve
drastically and immediately ". I don't think Dirk was too fond of the
medical establishment.
I assume this person never met a cancer survivor, an organ transplant recipient, a TB survivor, a premature infant, ....

That claim is simple and ourright offensive nonsense.

drkitten

16th July 2008, 03:25 PM

I see a difference in the regular Narrative of Science and the Evolutionary Narrative in that we aim to know the unknowable.

I fail to see (and this might be how I differ with others) how we can really claim that we KNOW anything about the past when it comes to things like "behavior of animals." Lets just stick with that.

Goodness me.

You've just thrown the entire discipline of police science on the rubbish heap, you know. The whole point of forensics is to infer an understanding of prior events on the basis of the physical evidence it leaves behind. How can we really claim that we "KNOW" what happened in a closed room when of the two people who were there, one is now dead and the other is on trial (and probably lying through his teeth?)

Well, we KNOW how blood clots, and how it travels through the air. We KNOW that blood DNA is unique to an individual and doesn't change substantially over a few hours. And therefore we KNOW that that blood stain on the perp's jacket came there less than six hours ago, and that it involved substantial amounts of the victim's blood, not the perp's. And we KNOW from the footprints that there was no substantial struggle, and we KNOW from the type of powder burns that the victim was shot from about three meters away, and we KNOW from the location of the entry and exit wounds that he was sitting at his desk and shot from behind.

In other words, we KNOW a tremendous amount about the perp's behavior then from the physical evidence we gather now. And even if you're making some abstract argument about "well, we MIGHT be wrong [although no sensible person would believe it for a minute]" --- that kind of sophistry has never been particularly popular in the courts or among scientists.

How do I "know" that T.Rex ate meat? Well, look at its teeth. We KNOW what types of teeth go with what diet. How do I "know" that T.Rex walked on its hind legs? Well, look at the legs, look at the hip joints, and look at the arms. What the hell else did it do -- jump around on a pogo stick? How fast did it "walk"? Well, we "know" that too, from what we know about the structure and strength of bone and the physics of walking.

And if you're going to suggest that we might be wrong in what we know about T.Rex -- well, no sensible person would believe it for a minute. The fact that I don't have video footage of T.Rex walking does not in any way enhance the credibility of the pogo stick theory ---- or any other.

Does that make it more clear?

Yes, but not in a positive sense. It makes it clear that the basic epistemology that underlies your position is nonsense, and your position itself is at best incoherent and at worst actively deceptive.

truethat

16th July 2008, 04:02 PM

I think that pretty much nails it.

Suppose we were to concede the bolded point. (I'm not convinced - in what way are these "sacred narratives"? - but whatever). Let's say Walking with Dinosaurs is a modern myth. We all agree that mythic narratives are appealing to most people, right? So, as per your point about past animal behaviour, your objection seems to be that these types of modern myths are false. My understanding (limited to undegrad classes on myth and symbol) is that the truth or falsity of myths is not a relevant consideration - i.e., academically speaking, it's not valid to criticize myths for being false. Myths are not defined as false stories.

So the question seems to be, assumming a particular modern myth is true (just assume truth for the sake of argument), would you still object to knowledge presented in that fashion?

NO that's not what my objection is. Myths can be TRUE and they can be false. The thing that makes it mythical as in "CREATION MYTH" which is the point I'm aiming for, is that it speaks to ORIGINS.

I think many people will agree with me that Evolution didn't used to discuss ORIGINS. In fact it used to be sign that Creationists didn't know what they are talking about when they mentioned abiogenesis or Big Bang because that has nothing to do with Evolution as a science.

Recently however these Origins Narratives have become very popular.

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/mythology.html

Creation myths provide an explanation of the origin of the universe in all its complexity. They are an important part of most mythological systems. Creation myths often invoke primal gods and animals, titanic struggles between opposing forces or the death and/or dismemberment of these gods or animals as the means whereby the universe and its components were created.

Creation myths also speak to order out of chaos, something from nothing etc. I AM NOT SAYING that SCIENCE is presenting a theory of something from nothing or order out of chaos. I am saying the public is RESPONDING TO IT THAT WAY.

I keep saying that I'm not talking about SCIENCE and I keep getting snotty replies. Why not just pat yourselves on the back for your wonderful science superiority. I concede that you guys are more knowledgable about the workings of Science.

But you still don't seem to understand that I am NOT TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE. I'm talking about the Narrative used to Explain science and the public response to that Narrative.

No other Science Narrative in the past has had the controversy that Evolution, Origins and Big Bang. And while some of you have pointed out that there is an attack on science, I don't see other fields drawing as much hostility, controversy and drama as these three? Do you deny this? Where are the people flipping out over Physics? Or medicine?

I think you have such a knee jerk reaction that you keep waiting for me to reveal myself as a critic of science when I'm not.

I am pointing out a human behavior in response to Science narratives that touch on origins.

I mean if you were answering me back and disagreeing then I'd just take it that you disagreed with me.

I've explained it several times and I've been very polite to you. So this sneering attitude is unwarranted.

truethat

16th July 2008, 04:10 PM

Um, I'm not the one using words that I'm refusing to define.

Well, that's good. So now you're saying that the distinction you've been defending for four pages isn't worth defending and you want to introduce a new term that you are incapable of defining?

Many of the participants on this thread are professional science educators. Many of us have a deep and abiding personal interest in increasing the overall level of science education.

Stories are used in education because they work. If you think that education would be improved by taking the story-elements out of it,... well, you're simply wrong. As I pointed out several times, it's not simply that the education would be weakened, but that it's literally impossible to describe a process without "recounting events" "in a particular order."

Even in the example you give, the "narrative" version is actually better pedagogy because it makes it clear how the hearer is "embodied" into the process and the reason for it.

I've explained the words I'm using at least three times in this thread and its only 9 pages long. You have a resistance to what I'm saying for some reason and are insisting that I haven't explained the terms. I've even wrote different narratives twice to explain the difference.

Ok so at least you see the difference between the two narratives I explained.

So stop there, you say that you want to better educate the public about Evolution but then you choose to take a path that confuses people as to what is known and what is deduced. It might be better for getting the point across for the moment, but if you confuse the person in the process in a way that the student won't recognize right away then what good does it do?

For example one of the arguments I've seen leveled at science (THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH) is that it changes its story all the time whereas the Bible has been the same.

Stop for a second and think of the number of people who don't seem to understand this. The reason this is confusing to people is that when science presents an unknown behavior that is based on deduction but doesn't make clear that its deduction and still up in the air, people take it to mean science thinks it has proven this to be a fact.

Then when more research takes it in a different direction people accuse science of changing its "Story."

Stop there for a sec and just stop assuming that I'm agreeing with the confused people, Don't jump all over me and accuse me of not understanding that science is constantly developing. I DO.

I'm not talking about the SCIENCE. I'm only talking about the STORY.

I think it does more damage than good to present it this way.

truethat

16th July 2008, 04:23 PM

Goodness me.

You've just thrown the entire discipline of police science on the rubbish heap, you know. The whole point of forensics is to infer an understanding of prior events on the basis of the physical evidence it leaves behind. How can we really claim that we "KNOW" what happened in a closed room when of the two people who were there, one is now dead and the other is on trial (and probably lying through his teeth?)

Well, we KNOW how blood clots, and how it travels through the air. We KNOW that blood DNA is unique to an individual and doesn't change substantially over a few hours. And therefore we KNOW that that blood stain on the perp's jacket came there less than six hours ago, and that it involved substantial amounts of the victim's blood, not the perp's. And we KNOW from the footprints that there was no substantial struggle, and we KNOW from the type of powder burns that the victim was shot from about three meters away, and we KNOW from the location of the entry and exit wounds that he was sitting at his desk and shot from behind.

In other words, we KNOW a tremendous amount about the perp's behavior then from the physical evidence we gather now. And even if you're making some abstract argument about "well, we MIGHT be wrong [although no sensible person would believe it for a minute]" --- that kind of sophistry has never been particularly popular in the courts or among scientists.

How do I "know" that T.Rex ate meat? Well, look at its teeth. We KNOW what types of teeth go with what diet. How do I "know" that T.Rex walked on its hind legs? Well, look at the legs, look at the hip joints, and look at the arms. What the hell else did it do -- jump around on a pogo stick? How fast did it "walk"? Well, we "know" that too, from what we know about the structure and strength of bone and the physics of walking.

And if you're going to suggest that we might be wrong in what we know about T.Rex -- well, no sensible person would believe it for a minute. The fact that I don't have video footage of T.Rex walking does not in any way enhance the credibility of the pogo stick theory ---- or any other.

Yes, but not in a positive sense. It makes it clear that the basic epistemology that underlies your position is nonsense, and your position itself is at best incoherent and at worst actively deceptive.

Some things we can deduce. I agree with that. But as for the perps behavior the reason we can say we KNOW how the perp behaved is that we've actually SEEN a perp before and know what they do.

We can't deduce mating rituals of dinosaurs. We can't say that T-Rex will eat her young after two months. We are basing these behaviors on the behaviors of modern animals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddfz0WHDjhY&feature=related

We can't say that she is "fiercely protective of her young"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAE5aqG8L_U&feature=related

This is Entertainment would you agree? The public loves these things. They are modern myths.

http://www.komonews.com/news/entertainment/8431167.html

D'rok

16th July 2008, 04:26 PM

NO that's not what my objection is. Myths can be TRUE and they can be false. The thing that makes it mythical as in "CREATION MYTH" which is the point I'm aiming for, is that it speaks to ORIGINS.

This has nothing to do with the post I was responding to (Walking with Dinosaurs as a modern myth...past behaviour of animals..."let's stick with that"...remember?)

I keep saying that I'm not talking about SCIENCE and I keep getting snotty replies. Why not just pat yourselves on the back for your wonderful science superiority. I concede that you guys are more knowledgable about the workings of Science.

But you still don't seem to understand that I am NOT TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE. I'm talking about the Narrative used to Explain science and the public response to that Narrative.

No other Science Narrative in the past has had the controversy that Evolution, Origins and Big Bang. And while some of you have pointed out that there is an attack on science, I don't see other fields drawing as much hostility, controversy and drama as these three? Do you deny this? Where are the people flipping out over Physics? Or medicine?

I think you have such a knee jerk reaction that you keep waiting for me to reveal myself as a critic of science when I'm not.

I am pointing out a human behavior in response to Science narratives that touch on origins.

I mean if you were answering me back and disagreeing then I'd just take it that you disagreed with me.

I've explained it several times and I've been very polite to you. So this sneering attitude is unwarranted.

:boggled:

What the hell are you talking about? Where did I sneer at you in my post? Are you confusing me with Dr. Kitten? Why can't you just read my post, which was a direct response to yours, and respond back on topic? Sheesh.

Fool me once...etc. Shame on me, I guess.

truethat

16th July 2008, 04:28 PM

This has nothing to do with the post I was responding to (Walking with Dinosaurs as a modern myth...past behaviour of animals..."let's stick with that"...remember?)

:boggled:

What the hell are you talking about? Where did I sneer at you in my post? Are you confusing me with Dr. Kitten? Why can't you just read my post, which was a direct response to yours, and respond back on topic? Sheesh.

Fool me once...etc. Shame on me, I guess.

That part wasn't directed at you specifically sorry should have made that clear.

Now you didn't address the point that Walking with Dinosaurs is a modern Myth.

truethat

16th July 2008, 04:32 PM

So the question seems to be, assumming a particular modern myth is true (just assume truth for the sake of argument), would you still object to knowledge presented in that fashion?

Yes. The reason I object to what's being done to these fields is that the Creationist debate indicates something that most people don't seem to realize.

The bruhaha has very little do with the real science of it and much more to do with Science giving the public a new Creation Myth.

When science buys into the public liking the stories they are unwittingly turning science into myth.

Lithrael

16th July 2008, 04:35 PM

For example one of the arguments I've seen leveled at science (THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH) is that it changes its story all the time whereas the Bible has been the same.

Stop for a second and think of the number of people who don't seem to understand this. The reason this is confusing to people is that when science presents an unknown behavior that is based on deduction but doesn't make clear that its deduction and still up in the air, people take it to mean science thinks it has proven this to be a fact.

Then when more research takes it in a different direction people accuse science of changing its "Story."

OK, I can see what you mean with that example. But I'm afraid I can't concede that getting rid of things like Walking With Dinosaurs is a good solution to the problem. The fact is those things are cool, they are fun to watch and fun to make, which is why they exist in this commercial media world. I would not have any problem with placing more emphasis in ALL entertainment, on what is factual and what's supposition, but it would clutter the presentation of television and magazines. It'd be better suited for a book. In BOOKS I totally agree that the effort to make clear the strength of and the reasoning behind the deductions, is always worth it.

You say most people don't understand that ideas presented in pop science may be theories, and subject to change. But, for that matter, I don't think most people know what 'based on a true story' really means about the show they are about to watch, either. And I think this 'mythic' power of entertainment is much clearer and more dangerous in completely fictional examples like 24, which has put into the public's mind this 'myth' of a ticking time bomb that justifies the torture of a prisoner. I've also seen people get the wrong impression of historical events and scientific ideas from clearly fictional sources. So I don't see how marking it all out would really increase understanding. People just take in whatever they see if it resonates with them. It has more to do with people's lack of critical thinking skills and inability to understand context than anything else, IMO.

D'rok

16th July 2008, 04:37 PM

That part wasn't directed at you specifically sorry should have made that clear.

No prob.

Now you didn't address the point that Walking with Dinosaurs is a modern Myth.

ETA: Never mind. You answered while I was typing this.

Yes I did. I conceded that it is a modern myth for the sake of argument.

I'm trying to understand your objection to it. You said two things: Firstly, you said that we can't know the past behaviour of animals. That would make Walking with Dinosaurs a modern myth that is also false. Secondly, you said that its presentation as myth is what makes it so popular. I conceded that too.

So, are your two objections connected? If Walking with Dinosaurs was a modern myth that was also true (just play along, you don't half to actually admit that it really is true), would you still object to its popularity?

joobz

16th July 2008, 04:38 PM

Yes. The reason I object to what's being done to these fields is that the Creationist debate indicates something that most people don't seem to realize.

The bruhaha has very little do with the real science of it and much more to do with Science giving the public a new Creation Myth.

When science buys into the public liking the stories they are unwittingly turning science into myth.
I agree with you that the sensationalism made in those earlier videos presents a missleading view of what we can say or not say difinitively about dinosaurs. Such Edutainment can be problematic in creating false beliefs.

But to highlight D'rok's point: The Myth of evolution occurs because of it's connection to the origin of species. It's an origination myth and why it resonants with people on that level. Even if we stuck to "just the facts, ma'am", it would ellict a Myth response. Which, in my view, if we maintain honesty to the facts, it's ok if it's mythical.

It's only wrong when the mythical evolution builds in false facts, like the behavior of the mother dinosaur as you rightly claimed.

truethat

16th July 2008, 04:45 PM

OK, I can see what you mean with that example. But I'm afraid I can't concede that getting rid of things like Walking With Dinosaurs is a good solution to the problem. The fact is those things are cool, they are fun to watch and fun to make, which is why they exist in this commercial media world. I would not have any problem with placing more emphasis in ALL entertainment, on what is factual and what's supposition, but it would clutter the presentation of television and magazines. It'd be better suited for a book. In BOOKS I totally agree that the effort to make clear the strength of and the reasoning behind the deductions, is always worth it.

You say most people don't understand that ideas presented in pop science may be theories, and subject to change. But, for that matter, I don't think most people know what 'based on a true story' really means about the show they are about to watch, either. And I think this 'mythic' power of entertainment is much clearer and more dangerous in completely fictional examples like 24, which has put into the public's mind this 'myth' of a ticking time bomb that justifies the torture of a prisoner. I've also seen people get the wrong impression of historical events and scientific ideas from clearly fictional sources. So I don't see how marking it all out would really increase understanding. People just take in whatever they see if it resonates with them. It has more to do with people's lack of critical thinking skills and inability to understand context than anything else, IMO.

I think that I'm not suggesting that we "Get rid" of things. I like Jurassic Park just as much as the next guy.

However what worries me is that the public is turning science into a religion. And I picture the same crazy types of people like Creationists who to me are just a minor irritation, will one day be operating under the religion of science. And it won't be recognized a such and there will be huge problems as a result of this.

People do take in what resonates with them. I agree as well but what is Entertainment needs not to be coming from places like NOVA.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/

It should not be in text books as Evolutionary ART. I agree with you on this. I don't think people are paying enough attention to this. I don't think SCIENCE is paying enough attention to this. And any criticism of science is usually a freak out accusation of creationsim.

I agree that the public needs more critical thinking skills and I guess it bothers me that the one place I would feel that should be a hallmark of that, SCIENCE, is pandering to the lowest common denominator because that's what "sells."

D'rok

16th July 2008, 04:52 PM

Yes. The reason I object to what's being done to these fields is that the Creationist debate indicates something that most people don't seem to realize.

The bruhaha has very little do with the real science of it and much more to do with Science giving the public a new Creation Myth.

It's a bit of a leap from your Walking With Dinosaurs example to Creation Myths, but I think I get your overall point.

When science buys into the public liking the stories they are unwittingly turning science into myth.

Isn't there a bit of a false dilemma here? Is this really only a binary issue - i.e., we either get hard science or myth? Surely there's some reasonable middle ground. If we drop the stories completely, we will drastically drop the number of people who are engaged in learning the results of science in any form.

Also, what about children? Can't we tell them science stories?

truethat

16th July 2008, 04:52 PM

I agree with you that the sensationalism made in those earlier videos presents a missleading view of what we can say or not say difinitively about dinosaurs. Such Edutainment can be problematic in creating false beliefs.

But to highlight D'rok's point: The Myth of evolution occurs because of it's connection to the origin of species. It's an origination myth and why it resonants with people on that level. Even if we stuck to "just the facts, ma'am", it would ellict a Myth response. Which, in my view, if we maintain honesty to the facts, it's ok if it's mythical.

It's only wrong when the mythical evolution builds in false facts, like the behavior of the mother dinosaur as you rightly claimed.

OK that's all I'm saying.

You are correct. THE MYTH does occur because of its connection to origins. That's exactly what I'm saying. And yes if we stuck to "just the fact's ma'am" it would still elicit a myth response.

However what I see happening is Science is (I believe unwittingly) encouraging the myth. It is helping the myth along but using Narratives that are mythical to get the information across.

And as I've said a couple of times now, which no one has responded to, we have no separation of Science and State.

If the same type of nut jobs that are Creationists fanatics make their myth of choice Big Bang, then what happens? Its not religion right?

Or is it?

Now this is what I've been trying to discuss for years now and this is the actual conversation.

I thank you all for helping me get the point out there. In spite of my clumsy explanation.

:cry1

truethat

16th July 2008, 04:56 PM

It's a bit of a leap from your Walking With Dinosaurs example to Creation Myths, but I think I get your overall point.

Isn't there a bit of a false dilemma here? Is this really only a binary issue - i.e., we either get hard science or myth? Surely there's some reasonable middle ground. If we drop the stories completely, we will drastically drop the number of people who are engaged in learning the results of science in any form.

Also, what about children? Can't we tell them science stories?

That's what's even creepier about it to me. When I see a child watching WALKING WITH THE DINOSAURS I know that they don't have the critical thinking skills to question it.

Most kids at a young age don't question what they are told in this way.

Part of the solution is as I said pages back to focus very strongly on teaching scientific method very clearly to the public from a young age. I think part of that would be to teach children to question things and to teach them critical thinking.

I would love Science to go in that direction.

Jimbo07

16th July 2008, 05:01 PM

I agree that the public needs more critical thinking skills and I guess it bothers me that the one place I would feel that should be a hallmark of that, SCIENCE, is pandering to the lowest common denominator because that's what "sells."

Well, this is interesting, of course. People who are involved with science communication tend to take their responsibilities seriously. There are instances when "selling" science can be very close to what a person is doing. It is a complete failure in the idealistic sense to use anything that borders on dishonesty in "selling" science. However, it is a complete failure in the practical sense to be unable to "sell" science to your audience.

As far as the honesty goes, are we back to prefacing every statement with, "based on current deductions," or, "based on the best available information to date?" I presume that you're not against telling the public about evolution, or the Big Bang, at all, are you?

Lithrael

16th July 2008, 05:01 PM

I think that I'm not suggesting that we "Get rid" of things. I like Jurassic Park just as much as the next guy.

But you are:

I agree that the public needs more critical thinking skills and I guess it bothers me that the one place I would feel that should be a hallmark of that, SCIENCE, is pandering to the lowest common denominator because that's what "sells."

If pop science did not 'pander' then Walking with Dinosaurs would not be a commercial success and shows like that would not be made. We'd only have Jurassic Park. What are the sources of funding for pop science programs that do not do well commercially? Nobody wants to throw money at shows that people are not interested in consuming.

ETA: And shows without the budget to look awesome and the pacing to keep interest will not find an audience, because networks will not be interested in them. Come to think of it I know I've seen a few dino vids that were more explicit about the facts but they just sit in libraries with maybe five checkout stamps on the back.

And any criticism of science is usually a freak out accusation of creationsim.

No, any criticism of science is treated with a little healthy skepticism. It's any poorly thought out criticism of science that's usually treated like trolling. You can see the difference between this thread and your troll thread, surely?

D'rok

16th July 2008, 05:01 PM

And as I've said a couple of times now, which no one has responded to, we have no separation of Science and State.

Well...we have partial separation of Science and State. Lots of research is privately funded; so are lots of research facilities.

If the same type of nut jobs that are Creationists fanatics make their myth of choice Big Bang, then what happens? Its not religion right?

Happened already didn't it? IIRC, Pope John Paul II gave the Big Bang theory the old Catholic thumbs up.

Or is it?

Religion has to adapt to survive. Old traditions have to deal with new info somehow if they are to remain relevant to people's lives. Maybe it's progress?

D'rok

16th July 2008, 05:07 PM

That's what's even creepier about it to me. When I see a child watching WALKING WITH THE DINOSAURS I know that they don't have the critical thinking skills to question it.

Why should they? They're kids. Let them get excited about dinosaurs. Critical thinking will come with time.

Most kids at a young age don't question what they are told in this way.

Part of the solution is as I said pages back to focus very strongly on teaching scientific method very clearly to the public from a young age. I think part of that would be to teach children to question things and to teach them critical thinking.

I would love Science to go in that direction.

This isn't incompatible with kids getting excited about dinosaurs from things like Walking with Dinosaurs. What if a grade school science teacher showed an episode in class, followed by a lesson on paleontology?

Dancing David

16th July 2008, 07:04 PM

As if teaching evolution in school prevents this now?

Come on, we all know that its been made a much bigger deal than reality dictates. Kids don't get educated in public schools to such a degree that it should cause such a panic.

There's plenty of time after public school to educate people.

I mean I'm not advocating that we shouldn't teach in school I just think this FEAR and threat is just odd.

So if they told you that there was a formula for writing in the English langauage and that all writing had to be taught to conform to that formula, and it was totaly arbitrary, you would be okay with that?

If they said that you could not teach any math outside of base ten you would be okay with that?

If they rearranged the atomic table of elements and taught it that way, you would be okay with that?

If they left Bill Clintom out of the history books and said you could not teach about him or his presidency, you would be okay with that?

Dancing David

16th July 2008, 07:07 PM

Skeptic Ginger

16th July 2008, 07:27 PM

Well, with only reading the first post and the last 2 pages I can conclude without much doubt that my hypothesis when I read the OP was pretty close. Here is a person, 'truethat', who either doesn't understand the scientific process or wants to drag science down to a faith (aka non-evidence) based version of one's reality.

Truethat, the idea one cannot be reasonably certain of things one doesn't have direct experience with is a false idea. It is trotted out all the time by god believers who want to equate their unsubstantiated conclusions about the nature of the Universe to evidence based conclusions about the nature of the Universe.

It is neither an original idea, nor is it one the skeptic community cannot address.

D'rok

16th July 2008, 07:39 PM

Well, with only reading the first post and the last 2 pages I can conclude without much doubt that my hypothesis when I read the OP was pretty close. Here is a person, 'truethat', who either doesn't understand the scientific process or wants to drag science down to a faith (aka non-evidence) based version of one's reality.

I'm not sure that's a fair assessment. On the face of it, truehat is arguing that science is being dragged down to a faith based version due to the use of mythological narratives. She's advocating stripping that aspect out of science education. There may be a hidden agenda, but why not give the benefit of the doubt?

GeeMack

16th July 2008, 08:01 PM

Come on, everybody. How about we all just agree with truethat? Change the way we present science to the masses. Make a clean break from narrative descriptions of complicated processes and stop confusing people with all that silly mythological ambiguity. Let's eliminate the dinosaur exhibits from the museums, because we don't really know how a dinosaur might have posed or what its skin looked like. Let's stop producing television programs that try to explain scientific things to just plain folk. And when the unscientifically oriented among us do express a curiosity about scientific subjects, let's just tell them to take a course or read a book. Learn real science, no holds barred, the full monty. Let them know we don't approve of explanations in simple, unscientific terms. No more of that less than fully complete stuff in the science or nature magazines. No easy to digest, interesting explanations for the school kids. And in the rare case where we can't keep science in its dry, just-the-facts-ma'am, statistical box, we should preface every sentence with something like, "Scientifically speaking, according to our best current understanding of the matter..."

How's that, truethat? If that's not what you have in mind, how about you give us some particular examples of how you would do it.

Delvo

16th July 2008, 08:21 PM

...the failure of human beings to artificially select a life form to such a degree that creates new forms of life.Good thing for the theory, too, since drastic and immediate changes would utterly disprove and destroy the theory, being completely the opposite of what the theory says.

To do so would demonstrate the enormous plasticity which the TOE requires life to have.No, it would demonstrate far greater plasticity than TOE can possibly tolerate (in other words, not nearly enough consistency of inheritance).

joobz

16th July 2008, 09:14 PM

I respect the point that truethat is trying to make. It is annoying to see bad science taught. it seems that truethat is trying to clearly define the line between bad science and good. Fact is there is no good single clear line and we get even murkier when we try to make what we teach entertaining.

The point is, to get across scientific principles, it isn't good enough to remain on one side of the line. We have to zig zag back and forth. We zig into the muddy waters to interest the people, then while we have their attention, we zag into the pure science. When the interest starts to wane, we zig back into the world of entertaining followed by an immediate zag of facts. What science needs to make sure of is that the zig to zag ratio stays healthily weighted in favor of the pure science.

Now, Perhaps it took truethat a bit to figure out what her point was, but that is the intent of this forum. Sometimes we post an idea that isn't fully formed and it results in a series of sidelines. Some people have a natural ability to think and express themselves with razor sharp focus. Others must work at it. I think truthat is working on it as I am still working on it.

Let's make sure we provide truethat the environment to learn and teach.

truethat, note that some people here are rather *ahem* direct in thier posts. Often times it is easy to become offended or feel attacked by other posters. Ignore those feelings. I think you may find that many people here are not as hostile as they seem in the first go around and indeed have a lot to offer.

truethat

16th July 2008, 09:26 PM

Come on, everybody.....

How's that, truethat? If that's not what you have in mind, how about you give us some particular examples of how you would do it.

Why the sarcasm?

This is what I mean. I'm not well versed in science. Nor are most people I know. So I'm not here pretending to be an expert on science.

What I would do are some of the things I mentioned. Like assembling a dinosaur with red bones indicating the actual bones, blue bones indicating molds made from other bones and green bones filling in the blanks. Then on a display use the color coding to explain where they found the bones?

I mean the point that I am making is that it seems we've gotten swept along in the excitement and the pop science (by the way I've never heard that term and I think its a great one!) and we're not really paying attention to the result of that.

Also skeptigirl if you read the entire thread which I know is hard to do, you'd understand that I'm trying my best here to explain that this has nothing to do with the SCIENCE and everything to do with the way its being presented to the public.

Take the movie Jurassic Park. Everyone remembers the T Rex attack with the palentologist screaming IAN FREEZE!!! and then the dino breathing right in their faces but not smelling them. This gave the impression that dinos can't see you if you don't move which is totally made up. The olafactory bulbs on a dino are enormous and it stands to reason that it would have smelled the two people dripping with panic sweat right in front of him.

But Jurassic Park is a science fiction movie. Walking with the Dinos presents itself as a documentary.

I don't know the best way to present it to the public. I'm not a scientist. I don't know what's essential to get across and what is just "fun ideas"

But I do think that the real problem with this deductive aspect is what was posted earlier, that if we say "We don't know for sure it just opens the door for Creationists to come blustering through."

To me that is the KEY to changing things. To stop addressing the creationsists or caring what they think. Science stands on its own authority and by rearranging itself because of God theory I think it actually fails itself.

truethat

16th July 2008, 09:40 PM

Well, this is interesting, of course. People who are involved with science communication tend to take their responsibilities seriously. There are instances when "selling" science can be very close to what a person is doing. It is a complete failure in the idealistic sense to use anything that borders on dishonesty in "selling" science. However, it is a complete failure in the practical sense to be unable to "sell" science to your audience.

As far as the honesty goes, are we back to prefacing every statement with, "based on current deductions," or, "based on the best available information to date?" I presume that you're not against telling the public about evolution, or the Big Bang, at all, are you?

No of course not. But what I'm saying is that I don't think Science is being responsible enough regarding this. Its almost like they are so happy to have found equal footing with the Creationists that its turned into a contest to see who can get the most converts. Its just wrong to me. I feel that science has allowed Creationists to influence science way too much and in a sick sort of way the Creationists are winning.

Roboramma

16th July 2008, 09:46 PM

I'd just like to second joobz' last post. Well said.

Beyond that, I'd also like to say that while I still disagree about some of the ideas that truethat has been expressing, I've been forced to think a little, which is always a good thing. I'm finding I'm a little unclear on my thoughts right now, and need a little time to figure this out. Again, awesome.

Regarding the mythology thing - that Neil deGrasse Tyson video I posted earlier was, I think, great. I really liked a lot of what he had to say, and it resonates with me. I even think that there's value there. On the other hand, in order to construct his "mythology" (note the quotation marks, I'm using truethat's vocabulary here) he says a few things which I think are blatantly false. At first, I felt that the errors truethat points out weren't attributable to "mythologizing" science. But, at least in the case of that video, it seems to me that they are - when he says "I didn't choose it, it chose me" I can't find any way in which I think that's true, but more than that, I can see that he's said it because of it's emotional, "mythological" value.
Now, that video isn't exactly an attempt to communicate science - but it talks about what is valuable in science.
Again, I actually think this sort of thing is very valuable, but maybe truethat has a point in that at least we should be careful with that sort of language.

To truethat - I still have to say that regarding mythologizing science, I mostly disagree that it's a bad thing. I also think that most of the poor communication of science is not related to it - bad science writing is often inaccurate not because it mythologizes science, but because it doesn't really understand it. Some bad science writing is bad for the opposite reason that you suggest - it's bad because it doesn't put things into context, it doesn't give the bigger picture. But I think that you have a point that's worth thinking about a little more, and that's why I think this thread is pretty valuable.

truethat

16th July 2008, 09:54 PM

Thanks to Joobz and Roborama for the patience and trying to understand.

Well I've given the science the benefit of the doubt that they don't look the other way when bad science is presented to the public. But if its common in science writing then I think this really needs to be addressed.

I think also people should consider what I've been saying about Separation between science and state. If bad science becomes acceptable and science myth becomes the sacred story, then what happens when people start tanking off the deep end about it and limited the way we are "allowed" to think and question things?

Already I see anger in questioning these stories. And that's to me what the problem is. If science is getting sarcastic and angry when you won't accept the story, and its origins and big bang, then how is that any different from ye old days when you weren't allowed to question the church???

I think people are forgetting that not just scientists have the power in this situation. Common people who have positions of power will be able to tell us what we are allowed to think and question. Right now we are protected from the church and we formed this country under that protection and guaranteed it in the constitution. But if we start seeing it creep in as religion disguised as science then what do we do?

This is my concern. I know right now its not really and issue. But it really makes me wonder. Every modern generation has its myths. If this is the myth of the modern and future man, it will be of our own creation.

arthwollipot

16th July 2008, 10:23 PM

6)In what way does the fossil record contradict evolution?Ooh, ooh! I know this one!

Polystrate fossils!!!

:D

arthwollipot

16th July 2008, 11:12 PM

I DO think it should be taught in schools and that it is a necessary part of science. But I don't understand the widespride hatred of Creationists and attack mode.If it were just about religion, then I wouldn't have a beef. But it's not about religion, it's about politics. The creationists have a stated goal of overthrowing the "materialist paradigm" and installing their brand of theocracy in its place (google the Wedge Document if you don't believe me).

The creationists want nothing less than to ensure that no American child understands biology. That's why I have a problem with creationism.

truethat

16th July 2008, 11:28 PM

So Creationists are the Zionists of the US? So lets throw everything into a war because of it?

Lets change how we approach science because of these folks that are fading fast? It is politics. I agree with you there. But I think its over done on both sides.

HEY!

I found a science guy who agrees with me. HOLY CRAP he even brings up Narrative Language woooty woot woot!

I'm not alone!!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/18/dinosaurs

arthwollipot

16th July 2008, 11:42 PM

So Creationists are the Zionists of the US? So lets throw everything into a war because of it?

Lets change how we approach science because of these folks that are fading fast? It is politics. I agree with you there. But I think its over done on both sides.So long as creationists try to get the US govenment to prevent students from learning about proper science, there will be people opposing them. To capitulate is surrender. This is a battle that we have to win - otherwise the US, currently the most scientifically successful nation on the planet, will go down the tubes.

JoeTheJuggler

16th July 2008, 11:57 PM

Again, this thread has moved on considerably since my last bit, but I need to respond:
I've got one word to explain what I mean

CLAYMATES

If you want to insist that the "public" can't turn something into a religion than how do you explain Clay Aiken?
I don't think Clay Aiken has any of the characteristics of a religion either. It sounds like you're using "religion" in some figurative manner, perhaps?

His fans are insane about him. What they see and what some sane people see are two different things.
Yes? And that doesn't change Clay Aiken into a religion. It also doesn't make the fans who follow him members of a religion or a religious movement. You seem to be confusing fanatacism with religion.

Let me ask you a question. How did RELIGION get so powerful in the world in the first place?
How religion got to be so powerful in the world has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with your contention that we are making evolution into a new religion.

Think about it. Most people tend to think of it as a forced institution. People turning something into a religion has nothing to do with the validity or the falseness of the claim. Its based entirely on how people respond to it.
That's a hideously incomplete definition of "religion". I also don't accept your assertion that most people think of religion as a forced institution.

The problem with people viewing evolution as a religion is that it gives them the idea that it's about a belief system. In fact, it's science.

You're making the claim that supporters of evolution are fanatically devoted to it in the same way a religious believer is fanatically devoted to their God or their faith. In support of your claim, you correctly pointed out that SOME people are guilty of sloppy explanation of evolution. That observation does not support your claim.

In fact, the people who think of evolution as a religion and to treat it like a point of faith (or basically a belief or opinion on a topic--sort of like what is your opinion/belief about life after death or free will) are more apt to be those who reject evolution. And most (if not all) people who reject evolution do so because they believe in some form of creationism or "intelligent design"--which positions are religious beliefs!

So you really seem to have it all backwards when you say evolution is becoming a new religion.

truethat

17th July 2008, 12:42 AM

Let me ask you a question. Don't define religion, first off, but the question is this:

What causes religion?

arthwollipot

17th July 2008, 12:44 AM

I think anyone who can answer that question should be eligible for a Nobel prize in... I don't know, sociology or something.

quixotecoyote

17th July 2008, 12:49 AM

I don't think Clay Aiken has any of the characteristics of a religion either. It sounds like you're using "religion" in some figurative manner, perhaps?

An almost mythical manner by the standards of this thread, wouldn't you say?

truethat

17th July 2008, 01:05 AM

I think anyone who can answer that question should be eligible for a Nobel prize in... I don't know, sociology or something.

Well its funny because most people I read know the answer to that. Its easy to see once you know what you are looking for.

People cause religion. There's this vast misunderstanding that somehow religion has this by the powers that be sort of authority over humanity. But the truth is, people create religion.

And people believe and have faith in the same kind of thing over and over and over again. When you look through history you see a very clear pattern.

There's this idea that there's some sort of mandate about what makes a religion. And its because people subconsciously still grant authority to religion and fail to realize that its just a manifestation of human myths that have repeated in varying forms over and over and over again.

People have all sorts of religions out there that you or I might not really consider a religion. It doesn't need the God stamp of approval to be one either.

http://www.religionfacts.com/religion/quotes.htm

truethat

17th July 2008, 01:11 AM

Quix I think its funny you've been sneering at me the whole time in this thread and the editor of Nature magazine "GASP" a scientist in his own right, Henry Gee, you know the evolutionary biologist and the palentologist, basically said the exact frickin same thing?

I guess he's a dumb ass just like me huh? :whistling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Gee

Here's the article again in case you missed it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/18/dinosaurs

You'll note he says two things I've been saying over and over again in this thread to the general scoffing of the most of the other posters.

But if Deep Time implies intervals so vast as to be incomprehensible, how can any story of evolution be told as if it were a narrative comprehensible in human terms?

Once we ask that question, any tale in which causes are linked with effects ("the dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid"), or ancestors are linked with descendants (Missing Link discovered in Africa), immediately becomes questionable.

When we wake up to the fact that Deep Time is too unwieldy as a medium for human-centred stories of evolution, we suddenly find something very disturbing: we tend to think of evolution as a story - but that is exactly what we cannot do. (Narrative is implied by the very word, evolution, following the Latin verb for to unfold. Darwin did not use the word in The Origin Of Species, preferring the less-loaded Descent with Modification.)

and

Science progresses through institutionalised scepticism. We are taught never to accept the validity of any viewpoint simply because our superiors tell us that it is true. To present spectacular pictures of dinosaurs and tell charming stories about their mating habits is just fine. But to present it all as fact is authoritarian, patronising and, ultimately, unscientific.

sound familiar?

quixotecoyote

17th July 2008, 01:15 AM

Quix I think its funny you've been sneering at me the whole time in this thread

Well I was content to let Dr. Kitten take you down a peg, but since you're looking for a full deflation, I'll go through the thread for a full listing of academic failure/dishonesty. The number of times you referenced experts who said something other than you claimed and the times you posted dense pieces of text and instead of unpacking it, claimed it supports your case when it's on a different point entirely should make for an interesting academic excercise. I almost did it anyway just for fun the other day, but I thought you'd finished your crash and burn with your little embarrasment in the science section. Since you decided to stick around, I guess I'll get to do it after all.

paximperium

17th July 2008, 01:19 AM

Well I've given the science the benefit of the doubt that they don't look the other way when bad science is presented to the public. But if its common in science writing then I think this really needs to be addressed.
I completely agree with you.

I think also people should consider what I've been saying about Separation between science and state. If bad science becomes acceptable and science myth becomes the sacred story, then what happens when people start tanking off the deep end about it and limited the way we are "allowed" to think and question things?
This continues to be an unproven statement. You have been saying this for much of the thread but have yet to show that this is occuring. What you seem to be arguing is that science is becoming dogma, but you have yet to show this at all occuring in the public forum and especially in academia.
Already I see anger in questioning these stories. And that's to me what the problem is. If science is getting sarcastic and angry when you won't accept the story, and its origins and big bang, then how is that any different from ye old days when you weren't allowed to question the church???
The anger directed at you is due to your "debating" and communicating style.
Sorry to say but you are not good at it.

You casually use loaded words such as "heresy" and "violence" which are terms that have significant negative connotations and yet you seem to not care that people are insulted by what is considered a low handed debating tactic.

You are inconsistent with your arguments. You are inconsistent with your definitions. You fail to answer many questions directed at you but seem to veer off topic at times. You also have a terrible habit of quote mining people that you claim to agree with you but when closely read actually does not.
It is frustrating and it seems dishonest.

What is worse is that you have a mocking dismissive tone when dealing with things you disagree with. You keep dismissing that Creationists are attempting to subvert science. Your posts have shown that you are ignorant of the attempts by Creationists and Domininists in pushing their Faith-Based beliefs into classrooms. You don't seem to follow the Dover Trial, or the recent Louisiana Academic Freedom Bill and yet you brush aside our concerns and then claim that scientists are overreacting.

There is no issue with questioning science. There is an issue with unjustified and dishonest questioning of science. You don't get to come along and say "I don't believe in black holes." or "I'm skeptical of Evolution. I don't believe we can ever know everything." Why? Because it is unjustified with no reasoning or clarification of why that is the case. It is equivalent of me coming along and stating, "I don't believe in myths because I say so."

I think people are forgetting that not just scientists have the power in this situation. Common people who have positions of power will be able to tell us what we are allowed to think and question. Right now we are protected from the church and we formed this country under that protection and guaranteed it in the constitution. But if we start seeing it creep in as religion disguised as science then what do we do?
Actually you seem to be mixing up dogmatic beliefs and science. Science is nothing more than a tool used to gain knowledged. It is consistent and it works. Science does not direct policy anymore than mathematics does, it is a tool.

You keep making this argument that science is becoming religion by using "Mythic" language. I'm unconvinced. I would actually prefer that more people were awed and inspired by science but at this time, it is the opposite.

This is my concern. I know right now its not really and issue. But it really makes me wonder. Every modern generation has its myths. If this is the myth of the modern and future man, it will be of our own creation.
While I agree that using Mythic Language to sell science is worrisome that some will accept it purely out of emotional appeal and not real understanding, I'm not convinced by your argument.

paximperium

17th July 2008, 01:30 AM

Let me ask you a question. Don't define religion, first off, but the question is this:

What causes religion?

Fear.
Fear of the unknown.
Fear of unanswered questions.
Fear of being alone.
Fear of having no purpose.
Fear of being powerless.

When you are a mythologists, every question seems to be answerable by myth.

truethat

17th July 2008, 01:33 AM

I completely agree with you.

This continues to be an unproven statement. You have been saying this for much of the thread but have yet to show that this is occuring. What you seem to be arguing is that science is becoming dogma, but you have yet to show this at all occuring in the public forum and especially in academia.
The anger directed at you is due to your "debating" and communicating style.
Sorry to say but you are not good at it.

You casually use loaded words such as "heresy" and "violence" which are terms that have significant negative connotations and yet you seem to not care that people are insulted by what is considered a low handed debating tactic.

You are inconsistent with your arguments. You are inconsistent with your definitions. You fail to answer many questions directed at you but seem to veer off topic at times. You also have a terrible habit of quote mining people that you claim to agree with you but when closely read actually does not.
It is frustrating and it seems dishonest.

What is worse is that you have a mocking dismissive tone when dealing with things you disagree with. You keep dismissing that Creationists are attempting to subvert science. Your posts have shown that you are ignorant of the attempts by Creationists and Domininists in pushing their Faith-Based beliefs into classrooms. You don't seem to follow the Dover Trial, or the recent Louisiana Academic Freedom Bill and yet you brush aside our concerns and then claim that scientists are overreacting.

There is no issue with questioning science. There is an issue with unjustified and dishonest questioning of science. You don't get to come along and say "I don't believe in black holes." or "I'm skeptical of Evolution. I don't believe we can ever know everything." Why? Because it is unjustified with no reasoning or clarification of why that is the case. It is equivalent of me coming along and stating, "I don't believe in myths because I say so."

Actually you seem to be mixing up dogmatic beliefs and science. Science is nothing more than a tool used to gain knowledged. It is consistent and it works. Science does not direct policy anymore than mathematics does, it is a tool.

You keep making this argument that science is becoming religion by using "Mythic" language. I'm unconvinced. I would actually prefer that more people were awed and inspired by science but at this time, it is the opposite.

While I agree that using Mythic Language to sell science is worrisome that some will accept it purely out of emotional appeal and not real understanding, I'm not convinced by your argument.

I know that this is a hair line difference in some aspects of what I'm trying to get across. So I'm dismissing things and not addressing things not to be a pig, but because its not what I'm talking about.

The bolded part proves that you still don't understand what I am saying. I'm not talking about SCIENCE. I keep saying this but you aren't getting it.

I'm not saying that SCIENCE is becoming a religion. I'm saying that people are responding to the Narratives used to explain evolution and origins and big bang in a way that echoes the myths of the past.

Take Jesus. Jesus is a mythical story. Just like a gazillion other mythical stories out there. When I say myth I don't mean "not true" or "true" I mean its myth, its a human psyche manifestation. Myth is a specific language that tends to use narrative. When origins theories use the same language people respond to it the same way they do to other creation myths.

Try to understand that I'm not saying science is Doing this. I'm saying science is not paying attention to the way its being received by the general public.

You say I haven't demonstrated a public forum that shows this. Well are internet forums public enough for you?

truethat

17th July 2008, 01:35 AM

Fear.
Fear of the unknown.
Fear of unanswered questions.
Fear of being alone.
Fear of having no purpose.
Fear of being powerless.

When you are a mythologists, every question seems to be answerable by myth.

These same answers are the reason that people are turning Origins and Big Bang into Creation myths.

paximperium

17th July 2008, 02:03 AM

I know that this is a hair line difference in some aspects of what I'm trying to get across. So I'm dismissing things and not addressing things not to be a pig, but because its not what I'm talking about.
Then clearly state and not casually dismiss it because it does make you seem like a pig.

The bolded part proves that you still don't understand what I am saying. I'm not talking about SCIENCE. I keep saying this but you aren't getting it.

I'm not saying that SCIENCE is becoming a religion. I'm saying that people are responding to the Narratives used to explain evolution and origins and big bang in a way that echoes the myths of the past.
And you harping only on only the bolded part, which was only one point and ignore the other which is a major issue with your debating style.

Did you forget:

You keep making this argument that science is becoming religion by using "Mythic" language. I'm unconvinced. I would actually prefer that more people were awed and inspired by science but at this time, it is the opposite.

While I agree that using Mythic Language to sell science is worrisome that some will accept it purely out of emotional appeal and not real understanding, I'm not convinced by your argument.

Take Jesus. Jesus is a mythical story. Just like a gazillion other mythical stories out there. When I say myth I don't mean "not true" or "true" I mean its myth, its a human psyche manifestation. Myth is a specific language that tends to use narrative. When origins theories use the same language people respond to it the same way they do to other creation myths.
As mentioned. When you're a mythologists, everything is mythology.
You have been arguing that the way people respond to the "creation stories of science" as negative.

How do you know that when people respond to the Big Bang and Evolution with a sense of awe or emotion, this won't inspire them to learn or question more?

Try to understand that I'm not saying science is Doing this. I'm saying science is not paying attention to the way its being received by the general public.
So? You have yet to make a case that this is a bad thing.

You say I haven't demonstrated a public forum that shows this. Well are internet forums public enough for you?
You mean that Trolling "experiment"? Please read Joobz critique of your so-called "experiment". I would call it a farce but I'll be kind and call it flawed.

quixotecoyote

17th July 2008, 02:50 AM

I've debated this topic ad nauseum and find that when you sound like you are critical of evolutionary theory most people treat you like you are either a Creationist or an idiot. There seems to be terrific resistance to any sort of criticism.

I'd just like to put this at the top to set the tone. As of the moment there is no evidence based reason to be critical of evolutionary theory as a whole, details yes, the the theory as a whole, no. So this thread starts trying to defend criticism that can only be based in superstition or idiocy. Yes, genuine honest ignorance is a possiblity, but honest ignorace wouldn't critcize, it would seek to learn.

As a scholar of mythology I guess I have a natural reaction to when I hear mythical language being used to describe something.

This is where you set the bar for yourself. As a 'scholar of mythology' I expect you to rise to a certain level of competence, like being able to define the field you claim to be an expert in.

So to sum it up in one phrase, the difference between most other sciences and Evolutionary or Origins sciences is that this type of science has taken to using NARRATIVE LANGUAGE.

That is instead of just stating the facts as we know them and simple conclusions drawn from these deductions we see that most Evolutionary diaglogue aimed at the general public has taken to using Narrative language to explain the science. In doing this the science is being taken in the direction of "Explanation of How did we get here" and using mythological traditions to discuss it. Its no longer pure science.

Unfortunately, you stumble right out of the gate. To be in the form of a narrative or story is not enough to be a myth. It needs to be a very special kind of story. To understand mythology as it's used here, Strauss is a good place to start. To take a piece of Strauss from his "The Structural Study of Myth":

On the one hand, a myth always refers to events alleged have taken place long ago. But what gives the myth anoperational value is that the specific pattern described is timeless;it explains the present and the past as well as the future. This can be made clear through a comparison between myth and what appears to have largely replaced it in modern societies, namely, politics. When the historian refers to the French Revolution, it is always as asequence of past happenings, a non-reversible series of events the remote consequences of which may still be felt at present. But to the French politician, as well as to his followers, the French Revolution is both a sequence belonging to the past as--to the historian--and a timeless pattern which can be detected in the contemporary French social structure and which provides a clue for its interpretation, a lead from which to infer future developments.

According to Strauss, a myth is not just any story. You can't just tell a story about how light colored moths died while their brown siblings survived, causing the next generation to be darker colored, and call it myth. There's no cultural touchstone, no visercal impact from that to life as it's currently lived.

Robert Rowland, another prominent figure in mythic analysis, supports this idea. In 1990, Rowland produced a tentative set of criteria for assigning mythic status. I can't seem to find that paper, so I will use the summation from David Sutton, in a 1997 paper arguing for a seperate category for folktales:

In order for a narrative to qualify as a myth under Rowland's system, it must fulfill several functions. First, the narrative must define a good society. Second, the narrative must help citizens solve problems which do not lend themselves to rational solutions. In addition, the narrative must satisfy certain structural requirements: the narrative is a story; the main characters are heroic; the narrative occurs outside normal historical time; the narrative occurs in a place possessing special symbolic power; and, finally, the narrative relies on archetypal language and/or symbols.

Again, what you are calling myth does not fit the definition of myth in any established academic sense.

When Strauss analyzed a myth, he did so in the attempt to determine how that myth related to other myths and what it said about the culture. For Strauss, myth is a dialectic such that "the purpose of myth is to provide a logical model capable of overcoming a contradiction." In other words, a myth is a response to a fundamental sociologic uncertainty or problem. Strauss uses the Odiepus myth as an example:

The myth has to do with the inability, for a culture which holds the belief that mankind is autochthonous ... , to find a satisfactory transition between this theory and the knowledge that human beings are actually born from the union of man and woman. Although the problem obviously cannot be solved, the Oedipus myth provides a kind of logical tool which relates the original problem--born from one or born from two?-- to the derivative problem :born from different or born from same? By a correlation of this type,the overrating of blood relations is to the underrating of blood relations as the attempt to escape autochthony is to the impossibility to succeed in it. Although experience contradicts theory, social life validates cosmology by its similarity of structure. Hence cosmology is true.

I'm not familiar enough with ancient greek culture to know if Strauss is correct in his assessment of Greek culture as believing humans are autochthonous (in this sense, to arise from an individual external source as opposed to a melding of sources), however for the purposes of this argument we may assume he was correct. In this case the Greeks believed that a person was formed from a single source, yet obviously two people were required to make a new person. Strauss follows this problem through different iterations: born from one or two -> born from different or same. He finally analyzed the myth as saying that it's impossible to escape the true destiny of your being, the ONE destiny of your being, which validates the cultural belief in the autochthonous.

No little snippet like, "Dinosaurs are cold blooded" can carry the meaning for something like this. But I get ahead of myself.

What I would consider "Narrative Language" would be statements like these:

The universe began with a vast explosion that generated space and time, and created all the matter and energy in the universe. Exactly what triggered this sudden expansion remains a mystery. Astronomers believe it involved a runaway process called "inflation," in which a peculiar type of energy that existed in the vacuum of space was suddenly mobilized. The inflationary expansion ended only when this energy was transformed into more familiar forms of matter and energy.

Now to me the underlined part is narrative language. It suggests that we know this is how the universe "began" when really that assumption or deduction is really not based on science as science defines itself. Its interesting how the rest of the quote goes on to show that "it remains a mystery" but the first sentence, the underlined one, doesn't sound like a "mystery" but rather a fact.

Now in this post you have temporarily stopped discussing myth and are using narrative language as if it was the diluter of the purity of science you decried in your initial post. This is highly amusing as not only does this description of the Big Bang not come close to falling under Strauss's usage of myth, but the idea that myth somehow taints science was rejected by Strauss himself (readers, please forgive the lack of a direct cite, I lack the full text of Strauss's works) in that he considered mythmaking a form of primative or concrete science, without which modern sciences discoveries and information were meaningless. The Encyclopedia of World Biographies (weird source I know) summarizes Strauss as follows:

man acts according to a logical structure in his brain, and that once the code of this logical structure can be discovered, the human sciences can be as scientific as the natural sciences.

This shares an agreement with Walter Fisher, a name I bring up because he focused not on myth per se, but on the power of the narrative paradigm. According to Fisher in his 1984 "Narration as a human communication paradigm:The case of public moral argument":

The logic of good reasons maintains that reasoning need not be bound to argumentative prose of be expressed in clear-cut inferential of implicative structures: Reasoning may be discovered in all sorts of symbolic action-nondiscursive as well as discursive.

Fisher went on to discuss how works like Death of a Salesman and the Great Gatsby provided reasonable and logical grounds for suspicion of a materialistic culture. Fisher's point is that narratives built upon a solid basis provide logical and reasonable grounds for consideration and decision making. When these principles are moved from fuzzy areas like what values to hold and into more specific scientific areas with solid facts behind them, the value becomes more apparent.

Carpenter's 1986 paper "Admiral Mahan, 'Narrative fidelity,' and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor" shows what happens when narrative is used in military science. It describes how, through accepting a narrative about the necessity of Naval Power, Japan developed its navy to the point of defeating Russia in the Straights of Tsushima in 1905 and brought an end to the Russo-Japanese War.

In order words, narratives based on correct facts can bring success to those who listen to them. Academia as a whole has acknowledged this and values the advantage a well-constructed narrative can bring to the teaching of science, be it military or biological.

I honestly intended to reply more on point, but I felt the need to establish a strong case first. If I feel up to it tomorrow, I'll get into the misrepresentations of Strauss elsewhere in the thread and the equivocations involving myth and narrative.

truethat

17th July 2008, 03:43 AM

I'd also like to point out that you have basically insulted me in nearly every post that you've made. Why you choose to discuss things like that is beyond me. But I am interested in what you have to say.

Sorry Quix but you don't seem to understand Strauss and this meaning of myth.

Strauss is one of the first to describe myth as its OWN LANGUAGE. You are discussing myth as story. I have said throughout that the STORY is what is turning it into myth. MYTH is not story> Myth is part of the human experience. THe stories told throughout the human history are not the myths, the stories represent the mythic thinking. Myth is a way of thinking. Not a story. MYTH IS LANGUAGE but with a detail. Myth must be shared to manifest as myth.

http://www.brysons.net/academic/levi-strauss.html

In Northrop Frye’s essay, The Formation of Myth, he defines myth as the literary version of ritual.

I'm not going to get into Cassirer because I'm tired and packing but here's David Bidney's response

According to Cassirer, myth has a truth of its own distinct from of other cultural forms since the mythical mind is creative and gives expression to its own form of objective reality. That is why he insists that myth is to be interpreted literally and is opposed to allegorical interpretation on the ground that the latter reduces myth to some other mode of cultural truth such as philosophy, religion, history and does not account for the unique and irreducible element in mythical expression.

Cassirer describes Myth this way

http://books.google.com/books?id=lvchKKENpUUC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=cassirer+myth&source=web&ots=Z3BoZe7Zud&sig=UBKC5uLc_GPsE7MNVQW8VfpFibo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA20,M1

Here's an interesting bit that relates to what I'm saying read where it says this part..... I can't copy and paste it from that link. Its on page 21.

Thought develops from mythic thinking which limits, concentrates, compresses, telecopes and hypostathizes experience to theoretical thinking which expands etc etc etc....

Don't you think its interesting that Gee basically is saying the same thing in the article I posted? He's taking issue with the way the stories are reducing things down to bite sized narratives. Likewise MYTHIC thinking reduces to story what is incomprehensible.

So you take the vast number of years that dinosaurs roamed the earth and you "bring it down to size" for the people. You make it the story of the dinosaurs when in actuality their existence is vast beyond our comprehension.

I know you will think I took a long time to reply to you but I actually ran out to the store. So I'm sorry if I'm just throwing stuff back at you. I'm going on vacation today and leaving for the airport at 1 in the afternoon. But this conversation has intrigued me so much I keep coming back!

I will be gone for three weeks but I hope to get online to see what people have posted. I'm going to Cyprus and I don't have the same ease of access to the internet there.

A good number of people struggle with understanding what Strauss was saying. Myth is NOT STORY. Myth is its own thing like say "emotions"... it is part of the human experience. In order for it to manifest it must be told and shared, but its not the story that makes the mythic thinking. The mythic thinking is in the human psyche. THe story is the manifestation of myth.

That's why I didn't discuss "myth" but Narrative language throughout. As I stated before. I guess you missed it.

I think it is interesting that you went to all this trouble to get these quotes but if you treat myth as story then you've really got it wrong at least as far as what I am referring to. Its not story, I can see why if you think this is what I'm saying, that you were confused. As I stated earlier in the thread I realized I made a huge error by not defining myth more precisely.

I quoted Strauss twice in ways that explained what he means if you feel like scrolling back to read.

I don't ascribe to Roland's myth but Cassier and Strauss, perhaps a bit of Jung and also Campbell. If you don't accept their theories then it makes sense that you don't agree with what I'm saying. I can accept that. We differ in that opinion. But you will notice that even Roland recognizes that narrative essential to myth. Based on the understanding that narrative language is the manifestation of choice for myth, you can see why I'm taking this position.

I hope anyway.

truethat

17th July 2008, 03:54 AM

Then clearly state and not casually dismiss it because it does make you seem like a pig.

And you harping only on only the bolded part, which was only one point and ignore the other which is a major issue with your debating style.

Did you forget:

As mentioned. When you're a mythologists, everything is mythology.
You have been arguing that the way people respond to the "creation stories of science" as negative.

How do you know that when people respond to the Big Bang and Evolution with a sense of awe or emotion, this won't inspire them to learn or question more?

So? You have yet to make a case that this is a bad thing.

You mean that Trolling "experiment"? Please read Joobz critique of your so-called "experiment". I would call it a farce but I'll be kind and call it flawed.

I think I most certainly have made the case as to why this is a bad thing for SCIENCE..........because its no longer science.

You know did you read the Gee article?? Because he really did say the same thing I did.

I've made two cases. One is that its changing the way science is handled in these fields.

And two, its not science if its myth. If the science community likes that these stories are adopted and loved by the public and it keeps churning out more and more ******** passed off as science, then its bad for science.

Even Gee said the same thing.

I'm not sure what you are saying. It seems like you are saying that if it makes people happy then its ok to bend the rules of science. That you question everything used to be what I thought science meant.

My experiment was one post. I've been discussing this same topic for years and the hostility that you see in this thread is a drop in the ocean compared to the normal backlash I face when questioning the sacred story.

You can see insult after insult in this thread. But other places I've been evicerated without anyone even pausing to listen. The fact that I dared say something critical of evolution branded me as a Closet Creationist with mountains of attack.

quixotecoyote

17th July 2008, 04:17 AM

Strauss is one of the first to describe myth as its OWN LANGUAGE. You are discussing myth as story. I have said throughout that the STORY is what is turning it into myth. MYTH is not story> MYTH IS LANGUAGE but with a detail. Myth must be shared to manifest as myth.

http://www.brysons.net/academic/levi-strauss.html

Yes myth is language, you have mastered the first part of the definition. Now you must move on to what makes language myth.

In Northrop Frye’s essay, The Formation of Myth, he defines myth as the literary version of ritual.

Which, if you'd like to discuss, I'm here for. As it is, this an unsupported name-drop.

I'm not going to get into Cassirer because I'm tired and packing but here's David Bidney's response

Cassirer describes Myth this way

http://books.google.com/books?id=lvchKKENpUUC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=cassirer+myth&source=web&ots=Z3BoZe7Zud&sig=UBKC5uLc_GPsE7MNVQW8VfpFibo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA20,M1

This is what I was talking about: grabbing a piece of dense text, dropping it in your post, and hoping it supports you. Do you have any idea what this actually means or why it supports your point? You have not given any indication so far that you do.

Here's an interesting bit that relates to what I'm saying read where it says this part..... I can't copy and paste it from that link. Its on page 21.

Don't you think its interesting that Gee basically is saying the same thing in the article I posted? MYTHIC thinking reduces to story what is incomprehensible.

So you take the vast number of years that dinosaurs roamed the earth and you "bring it down to size" for the people. You make it the story of the dinosaurs when in actuality their existence is vast beyond our comprehension.

Again, you take a tiny piece of what myth is and try to expand it to be the whole definition. Myth is not just simplification. You are not looking at this in context. I have explained to you key elements of myth that you continue to ignore, most from your key source. You are misreading Strauss and you are misreading Cassirer. Normally I wouldn't be too hostile to that. They are dense reads and not everyone can just pick them up and understand them. But that's not what you're doing. You have a bone to pick with science and evolution and you're cherrypicking tiny snippets of their work to misrepresent the whole and further your agenda. I could be wrong about that, but from your opening post to your debacle in the science forum, nothing else seems to fit.

Cassirer starts out with mythic thought in much the same sense as Strauss and Rowland, but then extends the importance of those myths as they become part of language which influences what and how concepts can be expressed.

Hell, if you had truly read the excerpt you linked to, you would have seen that Cassirer places myth as an inescapable part of language AND believes that the continued development of myth and thought moves to higher and higher levels of mythic reference until the discussion becomes that of the generalized world, at which point myth becomes artistic expression superceded by explantions of reality. At no point does Cassirer suggest myth should be removed from discussion of science, he just notes its changing forms. He even equates the two as aspects of the expression of self.

A good number of people struggle with understanding what Strauss was saying. Myth is NOT STORY. Myth is its own thing like say "emotions"... it is part of the human experience. In order for it to manifest it must be told and shared, but its not the story that makes the mythic thinking. The mythic thinking is in the human psyche. THe story is the manifestation of myth.

That's why I didn't discuss "myth" but Narrative language throughout. As I stated before. I guess you missed it.

See if you would provide a source and unpack it, this could be a supported argument. As it is, you're just pulling words from thin air. You're using your own idiosyncratic defintion, which I would have no problem with if you would clearly define it and label it as your usage. You do not do that. You pull different definitions from different sources using the term in different ways and use them to support an arguement that is different from what any of them say. In my opinion, that crosses the line from sloppy to dishonest.

I think it is interesting that you went to all this trouble to get these quotes but if you treat myth as story then you've really got it wrong at least as far as what I am referring to. Its not story, I can see why if you think this is what I'm saying, that you were confused. As I stated earlier in the thread I realized I made a huge error by not defining myth more precisely.

The problem is that your sources don't mean what you want them to mean, so when you use Strauss and Cassirer to support your arguments you become self-debunking. What you should do is go through the trouble to get substantial, meaningful quotes, go through them carefully to extract as much meaning as possible and THEN see if they support your case.

I quoted Strauss twice in ways that explained what he means if you feel like scrolling back to read.

I believe I pointed out your misreading at that time as well.

I don't ascribe to Roland's myth but Cassier and Strauss, perhaps a bit of Jung and also Campbell. If you don't accept their theories then it makes sense that you don't agree with what I'm saying. I can accept that. We differ in that opinion. But you will notice that even Roland recognizes that narrative essential to myth. Based on the understanding that narrative language is the manifestation of choice for myth, you can see why I'm taking this position.

Again, name dropping without substance.

truethat

17th July 2008, 04:23 AM

I'm sorry but I disagree. Do you realize that you've made no points of your own in this reply ?

Do you?

You've just yammered on about how I'm mistaken. No kidding Myth is language and I"ve got the first part. I doubt very much that my college would have accepted a Thesis that states exactly what I've stated in this thread regarding myth, in a Masters Degree program and requested a copy to be used for reference for the program if I was as rambling in idiocy as you seem to suggest.

I'm not wrong in my interpretation. You are. I'm sorry I'm not trying to attack you but you don't understand MYTH if you keep referring to it as story.

NAME DROPPING?

LMAO Ok now I've seen everything. Are you the one working on the degree in Communications? I told you it was a media based field. Only a Communications major would refer to a reference as NAME DROPPING>

Sheesh. Go read my friend. You've got it wrong. Trust me.

By the way, pulling words from thin air is what educated people refer to as THINKING. I don't need to give you a reference in order for you to "unpack this" what TERMS you use, its quite amusing really considering that you are a communication major. We'll unpack this with name dropping.

Sorry don't mean to laugh at you but its really ridiculous.

If you don't agree with what I'm saying that's fine. But you are clearly pulling theory out of your southern regions.

One more thing. Why didn't you address Gee's article? Why did you totally ignore that and take the gloves off. I'll tell you why. Because you are taking this personally.

Stop it. If you want me to take you seriously read Gee's article and give me a reply to that first.

quixotecoyote

17th July 2008, 04:33 AM

I'm sorry but I disagree. Do you realize that you've made not points of your own in this reply ?

Do you?

Point them out and challenge them then. As it is you're just adding to unsupported statements.

You've just yammered on about how I'm mistaken.

While providing counterdefintions and more comprehensive interpretations AND tying them in to the arguments being made.

No kidding Myth is language and I"ve got the first part. I doubt very much that my college would have accepted a Thesis that states exactly what I've stated in this thread regarding myth, in a Masters Degree program and requested a copy to be used for reference for the program if I was as rambling in idiocy as you seem to suggest.

I doubt that too. Hopefully you made more sense in your thesis.

I'm not wrong in my interpretation. You are. I'm sorry I'm not trying to attack you but you don't understand MYTH if you keep referring to it as story.

Lovely, now you only have to support that assertion.

NAME DROPPING?

LMAO Ok now I've seen everything. Are you the one working on the degree in Communications? I told you it was a media based field. Only a Communications major would refer to a reference as NAME DROPPING>

Where I said you were name dropping, what you were doing is saying "persons x, y, and z agree with me." (eta: or more accurately, "I also agree with pieces of what x, y and z said. Unless you spell out what pieces you're agreeing with, that wouldn't be good practice in any form) While there are points in a thesis or academic paper where that is acceptable, when forumlating the main argument, it is not. If you wish to use references in those circumstances you need to either accurately paraphrase or use relevant and complete quotes to use previous authors for support. In the cases I called you on name dropping, you were not doing this.

Further, your continued ignorance of the difference between Communication and Communcations as fields of study even after the difference was explicitly explained to you, does not produce a high level faith in your ability to discern the differring usages of 'myth,' when the distinctions are not so directly spoon-fed to you.

Trust me.

Give me a reason to.

quixotecoyote

17th July 2008, 04:38 AM

By the way, pulling words from thin air is what educated people refer to as THINKING. I don't need to give you a reference in order for you to "unpack this" what TERMS you use, its quite amusing really considering that you are a communication major. We'll unpack this with name dropping.

When those words are supposed to represent the opinions of established authors who agree with you, and you have yet to represent them accurately in relation to your arguments, posting statements of their opinions without sourcing or quotes does you no good.

Sorry don't mean to laugh at you but its really ridiculous.

If you don't agree with what I'm saying that's fine. But you are clearly pulling theory out of your southern regions.

Which theory arguments do you disagree with. This is just another unsupported assertion.

One more thing. Why didn't you address Gee's article? Why did you totally ignore that and take the gloves off. I'll tell you why. Because you are taking this personally.

Stop it. If you want me to take you seriously read Gee's article and give me a reply to that first.

Relink. I'm not going to go through the thread looking for it. If it truly gives a definition and usage of myth that matches the way you're using it in your arguments, I'll be suprised, but willing to let you drop the arguments based on Strauss and Cassierer and start fresh.

truethat

17th July 2008, 04:39 AM

Yes myth is language, you have mastered the first part of the definition. Now you must move on to what makes language myth.

Again, you take a tiny piece of what myth is and try to expand it to be the whole definition. Myth is not just simplification. You are not looking at this in context. I have explained to you key elements of myth that you continue to ignore, most from your key source. You are misreading Strauss and you are misreading Cassirer. Normally I wouldn't be too hostile to that. They are dense reads and not everyone can just pick them up and understand them. But that's not what you're doing. You have a bone to pick with science and evolution and you're cherrypicking tiny snippets of their work to misrepresent the whole and further your agenda. I could be wrong about that, but from your opening post to your debacle in the science forum, nothing else seems to fit.

Cassirer starts out with mythic thought in much the same sense as Strauss and Rowland, but then extends the importance of those myths as they become part of language which influences what and how concepts can be expressed.

Hell, if you had truly read the excerpt you linked to, you would have seen that Cassirer places myth as an inescapable part of language AND believes that the continued development of myth and thought moves to higher and higher levels of mythic reference until the discussion becomes that of the generalized world, at which point myth becomes artistic expression superceded by explantions of reality. At no point does Cassirer suggest myth should be removed from discussion of science, he just notes its changing forms. He even equates the two as aspects of the expression of self.

.

Actually I stand corrected. This part is pretty interesting. I am furthering an agenda....?

Okie dokie. I though I was having a conversation.

But I'll address what you are saying. I never stated that Cassirer suggested tha myth should be removed from discussion of science. Please show me what I wrote that gave you this impression. You also say I have a bone to pick with evolution and science and while I can understand to some degree the defensiveness that people have, you seem to insist that I have this "bone to pick" or that I'm against science. I"M NOT. I see science being corrupted by this which is why it bothers me. Like it bothers Gee. I guess he has a bone to pick with science as well.

Next. I did throw stuff at you which I pointed out myself. Like I said I'm running around and its not the best time for this conversation.

This part of what you wrote is important

Cassirer places myth as an inescapable part of language AND believes that the continued development of myth and thought moves to higher and higher levels of mythic reference until the discussion becomes that of the generalized world,

You are jumping too far ahead. I'm still at stage one with the way I'm saying this is developing. We have not YET made it into myth but its heading that way. That's a long long time until the higher and higher levels.

truethat

17th July 2008, 04:43 AM

When those words are supposed to represent the opinions of established authors who agree with you, and you have yet to represent them accurately in relation to your arguments, posting statements of their opinions without sourcing or quotes does you no good.

Which theory arguments do you disagree with. This is just another unsupported assertion.

Relink. I'm not going to go through the thread looking for it. If it truly gives a definition and usage of myth that matches the way you're using it in your arguments, I'll be suprised, but willing to let you drop the arguments based on Strauss and Cassierer and start fresh.

Show me anywhere that I have stated anyone AGREES with me other than Gee?

I find it hard to believe you are looking since I posted it twice and its right at the top of this page.

Also I never said Gee agreed with me on MYTH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/18/dinosaurs

Btw I don't know of any scholar that would assert that a long dead writer "agrees with me" because that's just worded incorrectly. You would say that you agree with the writer, not that the writer agrees with you.

That's simple communication. So if that's what you are studying well I don't know what to say about that but it doesn't give me too much faith in you .

quixotecoyote

17th July 2008, 04:46 AM

I'm pleasantly surprised at your post 375. I was enjoying the knock-down drag out, since its not often these threads stray onto my home turf, but I desparately need sleep and I'll join you in the foray back to more constructive discussion tomorrow if you're still in the country.

eta: re 376,
I wasn't looking, and in fact told you I wasn't going to, since I didn't think your Gee link would show anything your Strauss and Cassirer cards hadn't.

Per agreement, I meant as far as definitions and usages, and since you knew exactly what I meant by "they agree with you" instead of "you agree with them" I doubt any egregious failure of communication took place on my part. Besides, broadcasting content would fall more under a media based field, wouldn't you say?

truethat

17th July 2008, 05:09 AM

drkitten

17th July 2008, 08:53 AM

These same answers are the reason that people are turning Origins and Big Bang into Creation myths.

No, at several levels. No, that's not why they're doing it -- because they're not doing it at all. Nothing you've posted even suggests that they are.

D'rok

17th July 2008, 10:16 AM

If I can interject into the mythology pissing match for a second...

Truehat, I provisionally accept your basic premise, but I still can't see how it's a Very Bad Thing. Nor do I agree that it is happening to the extent that you claim.

Gee calls it patronization. I'm not so sure. Making order out of chaos is what we do when we tell stories or create myths, as I think you or someone else already pointed out. The facts and evidence, to the extent that we know them, and the methodology of science are available to anyone who wants to dig deeper than popular science. If the less-than-curious herd has a quasi-mythological understanding of the results of science, so what?

It's the Platonic Noble Lie, science style. So be it.

You should take another look at that link to the Royal Tyrrell museum I posted a few pages back. There is a good mix in that exhibit of prosaic science and "noble lies". Mixed in with the "completed" skeletons are some that are exhibited in exactly the form they were excavated, and, as I said before, the paleontology lab is also incorporated right into the exhibit - i.e., visitors can watch the paleontologists do their work.

Does that presentation of science work for you?

quixotecoyote

17th July 2008, 11:18 AM

I think yer just pissed at me cause you think I dissed your Masters. Sorry. I know that all forms of study are important. Its just that my thesis advisor had a nasty streak about Communications majors because they weren't well versed in academia but the sound bite of the day. I see that Communication is different.

Thank you. It got me a little more motivated to post than I normally am, I'll give you that.

Frankly I haven't been able to find any of the people you referenced in your original post to me by way of "look this up"

I found Walter Fisher here.
http://www.phillwebb.net/Topics/Communication/Reasoning/Fisher/Fisher.htm

Considering that Cassirer and Strauss are the go to guys for MYTH as well as Campbell, not so much Jung except for the idea of archetypes but really it did come across that you had "skimmed" through some of these guys rather than really reading them as deeply as you suggest.

I'm not too familiar with Cassirer, you got me there, but I am familiar with Strauss. He's the go-to guy for myth, alright. However, Fisher is the go-to guy for narrative, which I discussed in post 368, and since you move back and forth from the dissussion of myth and the discussion of narrative, he's quite relevant to the debate. I happen to have some scans of his two main papers on narrative if you'd like to pm me with a place to send them.

Additionally the "name dropping" comment comes across as a red letter scrawl response across an academic paper turned in for grading. I can usually tell when people are "playing professor" with me. You've touched on this stuff in class. I get that. But I wrote my thesis on this. So I do KNOW, that I know what I'm talking about.

And maybe you do. I'll restore some benefit of the doubt and say that maybe, in your yet-to-be-named field (mythology is not a field unto itself in the institutions I have attended), the interpretation of Strauss and Cassirer is so common and taken for granted that you only need a paragraph of explanation of a two line excerpt and everyone knows what you're talking about. That isn't the case here.

So far, consider it a personal failing if you'd like, I haven't been able to connect your source with your interpretation with your argument with your evidence (Gee doesn't support you without some legwork to link him with your position). Your comments on Strauss seem to be ignoring the formative steps of myth as language-incorporating metaphor from myth as story. I didn't comment heavily on the language aspect because that wasn't at issue. Strauss was heavily involved in the analysis of myth as stories and dedicated a lot of print to the importance of that. As a result, I don't see your arguments about narrative langague as myth because myth is language holding water. If you want to convince me (or the other people in the tread that haven't pissed you off as much), you need to take one of the examples of science communication that you don't like and walk us through how it connected to myth as defined by your source.

I also have the impression that you're using myth in different senses without warning. The 'dinosaurs are cold blooded' comment for example. For the life of me I can't figure out why you think that's mythical, unless you're latching on the use of 'are' which I think is a very weak argument. It looks from here like you're using 'myth' as 'false' which I know you aren't in other places.

This is the point I am making. The hash out on MYTH and meaning is a philosophical discussion which I have already said I can concede that you are not in agreement with me.

As of right now I'm not sure we disagree because I can't tell if you're using a consistent interpretation.

If you had referenced Strauss or Cassirer from the start I probably would have responded differently but it seems to me you are throwing your college curriculum at me.

Actually in my first post I just threw some typical definitions of myth because you seemed to be all over the place. To be fair, I challenged your reading of Strauss and Cassirer in my third post here.

Foster Zygote

17th July 2008, 01:54 PM

These same answers are the reason that people are turning Origins and Big Bang into Creation myths.

What people are doing this? Can you offer any specific examples?

Also, I still don't understand how you can claim that scientists are in any way to blame for the hostilities of those who do not like what science has revealed to us. In what specific ways have scientists been guilty of promoting conflict with the religiously dogmatic?

Civilized Worm

17th July 2008, 02:01 PM

When we wake up to the fact that Deep Time is too unwieldy as a medium for human-centred stories of evolution, we suddenly find something very disturbing: we tend to think of evolution as a story - but that is exactly what we cannot do. (Narrative is implied by the very word, evolution, following the Latin verb for to unfold. Darwin did not use the word in The Origin Of Species, preferring the less-loaded Descent with Modification.)

He did say this: "...from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

godless dave

17th July 2008, 02:27 PM

These same answers are the reason that people are turning Origins and Big Bang into Creation myths.

If some people are stupid enough to do that, then that's their problem. I see no reason why scientists should take any notice of them except to refute their nonsense.

paximperium

17th July 2008, 06:11 PM

I think I most certainly have made the case as to why this is a bad thing for SCIENCE..........because its no longer science.
So? Science as understood and popularly understood by the public (ie. Popular Science) automatically means bad because it ceases being "pure" science?

You see, here is where everyone here has a major problem with your thesis because this is an unsupported claim. You may be trying to justify it but many don't agree and your arguments are not very convincing either.

Show me a study that equates acceptance of a "mythological" understanding of science with dogma.

You know did you read the Gee article?? Because he really did say the same thing I did.
Yes I did...so? I'm surprised by that Quix hasn't pointed out your name dropping as nothing more than Argument from Authority. He made his case. Why don't you do the same?

I actually agree with some of it but article dumping does not support your argument, it just makes you seem like you are using someone else to argue your case.

I've made two cases. One is that its changing the way science is handled in these fields.
Which I don't believe is occurring and is still ultimately irrelevant when it comes to how academia handles science. But then you keep casually brushing aside that academia is not affected by this.

So I'll be nice. I'll give you this point: "Mythic Narrative is making the Scientific Narrative unscientific."

And two, its not science if its myth. If the science community likes that these stories are adopted and loved by the public and it keeps churning out more and more ******** passed off as science, then its bad for science.

Why is it bad for science? You keep claiming that without one iota of evidence to support this claim.

I'm not sure what you are saying. It seems like you are saying that if it makes people happy then its ok to bend the rules of science. That you question everything used to be what I thought science meant.
What rules might that be that is being broken?
That we are selling science in a narrative that makes it interesting?
That our narrative may actually make people study science more?
You see, you have never once convincingly argued that making science into myth is harmful.

In fact, I really really doubt the significant of myth at all. I was originally interested so I didn't challenge this issue.
Why are we as skeptics even accepting this premise that myth has any relevance without any evidence?
I actually believe that myth is nothing more than Post hoc rationalization and is ultimately irrelevant.
It really doubt it is science. Please show me that it actually follows the scientific method. Can it be tested? Falsified? Is it even useful? What are its predictive powers? Can any of your so called archetypes or myths be explained using naturalistic mechanisms such as neuropsychiatry etc.?

My experiment was one post. I've been discussing this same topic for years and the hostility that you see in this thread is a drop in the ocean compared to the normal backlash I face when questioning the sacred story.

You can see insult after insult in this thread. But other places I've been evicerated without anyone even pausing to listen. The fact that I dared say something critical of evolution branded me as a Closet Creationist with mountains of attack.
I don't believe you. Your "experiment" alone shows your inherent bias in this argument and I don't see anything scientific or even skeptical in your argument so far.
Please post links to these threads in the other forums that you claim that this happened.

I've concluded that you are not a good debater or communicator. You are patronizing, arrogant and dismissive. I wouldn't be surprised if people criticized and insulted you purely for that reason alone.

Jimbo07

18th July 2008, 08:08 AM

truethat...

A different angle has occurred to me. My wife and I are currently in the middle of watching Shake Hands With The Devil. While it is a "true" story, the actors still put some of their own personality into the characters. Is this mythologizing the events? If so, but it gets the story out effectively, is it necessarily a bad thing?

truethat

19th July 2008, 02:46 AM

Hey all,

I found out I have great internet access so I'm going to check in from time to time.

I can't get into a detailed post right now because we're leaving for the day but I will come on later to post in answer to all of your questions.

I want to point out several things. I concede that I'm not presenting this locked up tight. The reason is that normally when I've tried to have this conversation people jump all over me as a closet creationinist attacking science.

So for the most part my responses have been in trying to pull this on the right path and I've focused mainly on getting it away from "Attack on science" and "creationist debate."

I see that I'm not answering all the different questions posed to me. For the most part its too many different angles and I hate when I have very long posts in answer to one poster after another. So I ask for your patience and once again I really appreciate people responding to me in a way that helps me to think.

The fact is I've never gotten this far in the conversation but this is where I want to be, I'm trying to hone and develop my thesis here, not present a clearly forumulated one.

Quix is right when he says that conversation rarely steps into this territory so I'm excited as well to be able to talk to people who know the topic.

I will come back later and post a thought out reply. I see I cause more confusion when I just snap back an answer and I'd like to consider it more carefully.

I think that Henry Gee is saying what I'm saying when he says that creating an evolutionary narrative is problematic. How this relates to myth requires more attention.

I'll be back later.

truethat

19th July 2008, 05:19 AM

Paxi, btw you say "You don't believe me" and ask me to post a ton of connections with forums. But I don't believe you are sincere in wanting to understand what I am saying.

My evidence is reply number ONE in this thread and your basic sneering attitude as opposed to say Joobz or Roborama who while they may not necessarily agree with me have been mature in their responses.

Why the hostility? I've been told again and again here and on other forums that I am secretly a covert creationist attacking science. Except I've not demonstrated that at all.

My evidence is your attitude and others like you who respond to criticism of evolutionary theory with real hostility and when questioned why? its some paranoid sort of answer. (I don't believe you, you have a hidden agenda, you are a closet creationist trying to gain my trust in your attack on science etc etc etc)

You've yet to explain why, even if I were a closet creationist, you feel that you need to be angry and mean in this conversation. I've not criticized science and have been clear that I'm trying to get my thoughts together. So why the hostility from YOU? Lets leave all the years of experience out of it, why the anger from YOU? Its still not making sense to me why anger and hostility is your method of choice?

And this is a very typical response I see from people when they think they are talking to a creationist. You could say its any number of things but really none of them warrant anger and hostility. Frustration maybe but anger and hostility? No.

So why not start with an explanation as to why you feel that this is an appropriate response?

I'd also like to briefly answer your "Why are we even accepting yadda yadda" with regard to MYTH. The answer is the same one I've given to plumjam earlier. Your lack of understanding in a subject area is not the same thing as skepticism. Skepticism, in my opinion, warrants an understanding of a topic being discussed. You can't BE skeptical of something you don't understand. And since this is something that has been stated many times in the past by people such as yourself, I don't even understand why you are making the statement you are making.

If you don't understand myth and its relevence then either, stay out of the conversation or go do a bit of reading and research and see if you can grasp the point.

This thread is a question, not an attack as you and others keep trying to push for.

I've given some thought to the myth aspect.

In my opinion mythic response is a human experience shared by I would wager 99 percent of the population. Quix was right in pointing out that not any story can be a myth, but people in general are receptive and open to narratives that resonate on a mythic level. As such the modern myths have been extraordinarily popular.

Myth is not necessarily connected to religion. Some myths remain myths and others are taken over the edge to religion. So Star Wars is a modern myth, and so is Harry Potter. Both the authors of these myths used hero archetypes that are found in many myths throughout the world. The stories of Jesus and Moses for example use these archetypes. However they have been taken further into religion.

Fanaticism about myth is in my opinion, the reason that myth steps over into religion. That THIS STORY is the TRUE STORY and that it out trumps all other stories. The hostility in questioning the "sacred story" is part of what helps it step over that edge. What I see in the Creationist and Evolutionist debate is to me an unhealthy concern with convincing the other side that this IS the right story. If people wish to remain ignorant that is there perogative.

People often site the WEDGE movement as a tremendous problem with Creationists however Jehovahs Witnesses have been going around for decades trying to convert people. Christians have forever been doing this with not too much sucess, yes they have a right to try to create a country in which they are happy to live. Most narrow minded people fight for what they want and try to force others to assimilate. But in general, and with regard to the evolution debate, they have not been successful in a grand way. Lawsuits are lawsuit, anyone with a lawyer willing to take their case can sue someone. So I'm not too bothered about any long term success in things. Even homosexuals are being granted marriage rights, the world is changing and the Christians are freaking out but they aren't going to be very successful.

That's how I see it. I don't take them seriously as a threat. When others do I take it as hype and paranoia, so perhaps where everyone else lives they are having a darker impact. I live in NYC so I don't see it too much.

D'rok

19th July 2008, 08:40 AM

Myth is not necessarily connected to religion. Some myths remain myths and others are taken over the edge to religion. So Star Wars is a modern myth, and so is Harry Potter. Both the authors of these myths used hero archetypes that are found in many myths throughout the world. The stories of Jesus and Moses for example use these archetypes. However they have been taken further into religion.

This is the Joseph Campbell framework that most of us here probably have a pretty good basic grasp of. How about explaining why you think the evolutionary narrative of popular science is a myth in the Campbell sense? You aren't succeeding at doing that so far.

(P.S. You scoffed at me a while back for bringing up Oedipus, but he is the quintessential hero archetype in the Campbell mode.)

paximperium

19th July 2008, 01:41 PM

Paxi, btw you say "You don't believe me" and ask me to post a ton of connections with forums. But I don't believe you are sincere in wanting to understand what I am saying.
<snip>
So why not start with an explanation as to why you feel that this is an appropriate response?
Because I think you are dishonest and incompetent in your argument. I don't mind ignorance or even bad arguments, but I see you using dishonest arguments. If you read the start and middle of thread, you will see I was very very interested in learning something new about myth.

You insinuating that I think you are a Creationist is nothing more than more dishonesty from you.

I don't think you are a Creationist. I think you are are pseudo-scientist attempting to fit your pet unproven and irrelevant field of study as a science. Myth is a nice field of study and can give some insight into the human condition, YOU on the other hand are using it like a sledgehammer and applying to a whole lot of different things.

I'd also like to briefly answer your "Why are we even accepting yadda yadda" with regard to MYTH. The answer is the same one I've given to plumjam earlier. Your lack of understanding in a subject area is not the same thing as skepticism. Skepticism, in my opinion, warrants an understanding of a topic being discussed. You can't BE skeptical of something you don't understand. And since this is something that has been stated many times in the past by people such as yourself, I don't even understand why you are making the statement you are making.
So that means you are claiming that myth is relevant but are unwilling or unable to show me why it is relevant? Gotcha...

If you don't understand myth and its relevence then either, stay out of the conversation or go do a bit of reading and research and see if you can grasp the point.
Irrelevant. Any claim can be tested using the Scientific Method. You are making a whole lot of claims without one shred of evidence to back up your claims.

This thread is a question, not an attack as you and others keep trying to push for.
No. This thread is a way for you to pat yourself on the back and feel good about your thesis. You have never shown any relevance or reality of your claims except for semantic posturing.

In my opinion mythic response is a human experience shared by I would wager 99 percent of the population. Quix was right in pointing out that not any story can be a myth, but people in general are receptive and open to narratives that resonate on a mythic level. As such the modern myths have been extraordinarily popular.
That's nice. Any evidence to support this claim or do I just take your word for it?

Myth is not necessarily connected to religion. Some myths remain myths and others are taken over the edge to religion. <snip>.
What I see in the Creationist and Evolutionist debate is to me an unhealthy concern with convincing the other side that this IS the right story. If people wish to remain ignorant that is there perogative.
This is where you are not only wrong but ignorant on this debate.
Evolutionists/Biologists/Cosmologists/Geologists etc. have little interest in convincing Creationists about evolution. Most couldn't care less, if Creationist live in a hut somewhere without modern science. What scientists care about is teaching the public about science and evolution and attempting to prevent the continuous smears and attacks by Creationists. Some people actually care that kids are being thought dark age superstitious beliefs.

People often site the WEDGE movement as a tremendous problem with Creationists however Jehovahs Witnesses have been going around for decades trying to convert people. Christians have forever been doing this with not too much sucess, yes they have a right to try to create a country in which they are happy to live. Most narrow minded people fight for what they want and try to force others to assimilate. But in general, and with regard to the evolution debate, they have not been successful in a grand way. Lawsuits are lawsuit, anyone with a lawyer willing to take their case can sue someone. So I'm not too bothered about any long term success in things. Even homosexuals are being granted marriage rights, the world is changing and the Christians are freaking out but they aren't going to be very successful.
Translation: Because Creationist( or Anti-gay, Anti Abortion, KKK etc.) are not very successful in their endeavors to lie and legislate their beliefs into classrooms, therefore we should ignore them?

Yeah...you can see why so many people here think you are ignorant on this issue.

That's how I see it. I don't take them seriously as a threat. When others do I take it as hype and paranoia, so perhaps where everyone else lives they are having a darker impact. I live in NYC so I don't see it too much.
Ahhhhh....so this is the crux of the argument. It isn't that you are talking about myth and all that other semantic acrobatics.

You see the Pro-Science stance as unreasonable or unjustified and are now using your Myth Theory as a way to justify your criticism of the Pro-Science stance using this myth narrative as an excuse. Yeah, nothing more than Pseudo-Science.

Soapy Sam

19th July 2008, 02:19 PM

truethat
I'm late to the thread. I read your first few posts, then jumped to page 10. Sorry if I missed important stuff.
I think the answer to your question may lie in the books you read. Most of us get our "data" on Darwinism from Dawkins, Gould and other popular writers. By definition, this is POPULAR writing; writing for a massive, lay audience.
If you want to see the narrative language vanish, read the original research papers.

This seems true of most pop sci. writing.

I feel doubtful about aspects of evolution for other reasons- specifics- eg- to do with precisely how a tiger evolved such a cool pattern of stripes- but the answers to such specific issues are matters of genetics and embryology, no more common in pop Darwinism books than equations are in pop. physics books- for the same reason. (Diminishing sales. Books are sold by publishers, to make money).

If I might suggest- have you read Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale"? Less narration than usual, more fossil data. Might suit you better. Speculative, of course. We don't know enough. We never will.

JoeTheJuggler

19th July 2008, 02:22 PM

These same answers are the reason that people are turning Origins and Big Bang into Creation myths.
As I pointed out already, the people who are treating science as an article of faith are much more preponderantly those who reject science.

You yourself admit that it's not a problem with science itself (the scientist, the research, the publications, etc.) but with the popular perception of science.

I've pointed out, especially with regard to evolution and the Big Bang, there is a widespread popular rejection of the science.

If there are some people (among those who accept evolution and the Big Bang Theory) who are turning evolution and the Big Bang Theory into creation myths, they are in the extreme minority. It is definitely not a culture-wide phenomenon. The much more dominant myth in our culture are the various forms of the Judeo-Christian myth--a purely religious mythology.

Since the people who might think of scientific ideas from a dogmatic perspective, I have a hard time accepting that science is turning into a religion or a mythology.

(As I think you'd agree, in fact "evolution" and "science" and "the Big Bang Theory" are not turning into anything. As scientific ideas, they're still there and fine--you're strictly talking about erroneous popular perceptions of them.)

truethat

19th July 2008, 03:25 PM

As I pointed out already, the people who are treating science as an article of faith are much more preponderantly those who reject science.

You yourself admit that it's not a problem with science itself (the scientist, the research, the publications, etc.) but with the popular perception of science.

I've pointed out, especially with regard to evolution and the Big Bang, there is a widespread popular rejection of the science.

If there are some people (among those who accept evolution and the Big Bang Theory) who are turning evolution and the Big Bang Theory into creation myths, they are in the extreme minority. It is definitely not a culture-wide phenomenon. The much more dominant myth in our culture are the various forms of the Judeo-Christian myth--a purely religious mythology.

Since the people who might think of scientific ideas from a dogmatic perspective, I have a hard time accepting that science is turning into a religion or a mythology.

(As I think you'd agree, in fact "evolution" and "science" and "the Big Bang Theory" are not turning into anything. As scientific ideas, they're still there and fine--you're strictly talking about erroneous popular perceptions of them.)

Thank you for understanding my point. I suggest Paxi read it to see that I am making a point that others understand even if he does not. You Roborama, Jimbo and others seem to understand my point even if you don't necessarily agree with it.

Paxi I see much more insult in your comments than anything of substance. I don't see how someone who says that they are trying to form an idea in a clear way and thanks people for their patience could be construed as "ARROGANT" and "back patting" so it appears to me that you have issues with this topic which have nothing to do with being said. I asked you why the anger on your part and you did not reply. You did not address why you yourself feel that anger is the way to respond to arrogant or whatever else type people.

In my opinion this is because this is becoming an epidemic of sorts. I see a lot of this "justified" backlash and anger and accusations and name calling whenever people perceive an attack on this particular part of science. You don't see common people getting their panties in a bunch over string theory for example.

Joe you point out that an extreme minority is turning the Big Bang and origins theories into Creation Myths, but you don't seem to realize that Big Bang IS a creation myth. I'm not saying that its not true. But it fills the requirements of a creation myth.

Now I'm going to try to address a few people at the same time here but briefly so I reserve the right to remove my foot from my mouth later if I misspeak.

Sam, I agree with your approach to evolution that there's definitely some things that don't make a lot of sense to me but I recognize that this is likely because I don't understand it the way I should. Also because of Narrative story telling ala Walking With the Dinosaurs I'm skeptical as to who to trust.
But that's not really the point I'm trying to make here.

Jimbo you asked what the upset would be with regard to myth and fact. I see your point, if it makes it a little more interesting what's the harm right?

I can see that, except let me give you some examples. Say we had a movie at the theaters. They are biographies. (Based loosely on true stories)

So try these on for size

The Linda McCartney Story, staring Heather Mills

The Life of Colin Powell starring Jessie Jackson?

I could go on, but I think you get my point. If a story is being sensationalized and sold in a way that goes against the core values of the subject of the biography, then you would certainly take issue with someone inserting a bit of themselves into the other subject's story.

So to me this reads like

The Science of The Earth starring Myth

Its just not sitting right with me that Science, the thing I hold sacred in my own regard as that one discipline that will not be sullied by emotional misguidance is serving up Dinomyths because deGrasse Tyson felt called by the cosmos to tell its story.

It's just wrong to me on so many levels.

Now some people have asked "what's the big deal" "why do you care so much"

well I've turned it back and asked the same thing. What's the big deal about ID being taught in schools along side Evolution. And the come back answer has always been, BECAUSE ITS NOT SCIENCE.

So why is it when Evolution myth and art is served up, people just let it slide. There IS science to be taught about evolution. Like how the tiger evolved its stripes, there is such a vast amount of information and fact that we can learn that is fascinating. So why the side alley digression down to MYTH?

That's what I don't understand

Edited to add

I actually DO understand it, its the point I'm trying to make. That people inherently have a like of myth. Its in the human psyche. And if we keep allowing Evolutionary Science and Origins theories and Big Bang theories to go down that side alley to Myth, its going to grow exponentially bigger in popular science to respond to these sciences as the next new mythology.

The difference between modern myths such as Star Wars and Harry Potter and this, is most people understand that these myths are not true. But the line is being blurred when it is coming from science. People DO think these new science myths are TRUE and FACT and that's simply not true. And its no longer science any more.

JoeTheJuggler

19th July 2008, 03:56 PM

Joe you point out that an extreme minority is turning the Big Bang and origins theories into Creation Myths, <snip>

I most certainly did not. I said that even if a minority of people who support the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory do so for wrong reasons (dogmatically rather than scientifically) they are too few for it to be considered a myth or religion.

<continued>but you don't seem to realize that Big Bang IS a creation myth. I'm not saying that its not true. But it fills the requirements of a creation myth.
No it's not. It's a scientific theory. It's the best explanation to explain the current evidence. It is the current consensus among physicists. It is NOT a creation myth.

Now it's you who is confusing a misperception held among some few non-scientists for the science itself.

What's the big deal about ID being taught in schools along side Evolution. And the come back answer has always been, BECAUSE ITS NOT SCIENCE.

So why is it when Evolution myth and art is served up, people just let it slide.
The fact that the fact of evolution and the scientific theory of evolution are sometimes poorly understood and some few times poorly taught does not mean there is an "Evolution myth".

ID is not science. Its current version (the one people are trying to teach as a science option in public schools) is merely a subterfuge. The courts told these same people that "creation science" is not science but religion and should not be taught in public schools as science. They changed the name (and NOTHING ELSE) to "Intelligent Design" and tried again. The courts (especially in Dover) saw through the ruse.

So to review: evolution (both the fact and the scientific theory) and the Big Bang theory are science and not myth or religion. (The fact that a minority of teachers and a majority of the general public don't understand these theories and/or can't explain them well does not change it into a myth or religion.) ID/Creation Science are NOT science, but tag words invented solely for the purpose of teaching certain religious doctrines in public school science classes.

truethat

19th July 2008, 04:05 PM

Big Bang is a creation myth according to the definition of creation myth

Go here

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/mythology.html

Creation myths provide an explanation of the origin of the universe in all its complexity. They are an important part of most mythological systems. Creation myths often invoke primal gods and animals, titanic struggles between opposing forces or the death and/or dismemberment of these gods or animals as the means whereby the universe and its components were created.

and

Mythology
by Bernard Doyle
Definitions of Myth
Before defining the term "mythology" one needs to define the meaning of the word "myth". The word itself comes from the Greek "mythos" which originally meant "speech" or "discourse" but which later came to mean "fable" or "legend". In this document the word "myth" will be defined as a story of forgotten or vague origin, basically religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalize one or more aspects of the world or a society.
Furthermore, in the context of this document, all myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that used or originated the myth. Our definition is thus clearly distinguished from the use of the word myth in everyday speech which basically refers to any unreal or imaginary story.

A myth is also distinctly different from an allegory or parable which is a story deliberately made up to illustrate some moral point but which has never been assumed to be true by anyone.

Some myths describe some actual historical event, but have been embellished and refashioned by various story tellers over time so that it is impossible to tell what really happened. In this last aspect myths have a legendary and historical nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

At the bottom you will see The Great Story
The Great Story", "the Story of the Universe", or "the Epic of Evolution" are titles for the core belief of a social movement that tells the history of the universe in a way that is simultaneously scientific and sacred. It articulates the understandings of modern science – especially the evolutionary sciences ranging from stellar evolution to biological evolution and cultural evolution – as a sacred creation story, much like the traditional creation myths passed down through oral cultures and sacred texts.

Then Great Story takes you here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Story

Why are some of you acting like I'm pushing a personal made up agenda. Its regarded in mythological studies as a creation myth.???

Once again for those who have not read the entire thread. Posing a dinosaur in a certain way that suggests a behavior, is Evolutionary ART.

In other words saying "We know that the T rex ate meat because it has sharp teeth" is not the same thing as posing a T rex in a hunting position. Hyena's have sharp teeth and they are scavangers. There's debate to behavior on this. Drawing or illustrating a dinosaur running through the terrain attacking another dinosaur is Evolutionary art. Its not proven or fact or even theory as fact. It remains hypothesis. Yet it is often presented as fact. This is what I mean.

truethat

19th July 2008, 04:19 PM

.

So to review: evolution (both the fact and the scientific theory) and the Big Bang theory are science and not myth or religion. (The fact that a minority of teachers and a majority of the general public don't understand these theories and/or can't explain them well does not change it into a myth or religion.) ID/Creation Science are NOT science, but tag words invented solely for the purpose of teaching certain religious doctrines in public school science classes.

I excerpted your post because I don't care about Creationists or Creationism for the purposes of this thread. I agree they are a pain in the tucas but that's not the point of this thread. There are a bazillion other threads where you can have that conversation so I'd like to keep it out this one.

Now as to the bolded. That's probably the exact point of this thread. Because, YES IT DOES. Keep in mind that I am NOT talking about the Science, I've stated that over and over again in this thread. The science and scientists involved for the most part probably keep it pretty pure.

BUT the way it is presented to the public, and the public reaction to it MOST CERTAINLY DOES turn it into a Creation Myth. That's my entire point.

What made the Jesus myth into a religion? That's what I stated a few pages ago. That people somehow deep inside their minds tend to regard religion as an authority, but it is NOT. PEOPLE create religion by the way they react to myth and how sacrosanct they treat the myth.

Therefor Harry Potter remains story Star wars remains story but the authority granted to the science behind the Big Bang and other Origins myths (not the science but the myth of it) IS what will turn it into a religion.

Foster Zygote

19th July 2008, 06:07 PM

These same answers are the reason that people are turning Origins and Big Bang into Creation myths.
What people are doing this? Can you offer any specific examples?

Also, I still don't understand how you can claim that scientists are in any way to blame for the hostilities of those who do not like what science has revealed to us. In what specific ways have scientists been guilty of promoting conflict with the religiously dogmatic?

JoeTheJuggler

19th July 2008, 07:44 PM

Big Bang is a creation myth according to the definition of creation myth
No it's not--even based on the two definitions of myth you just presented.

Creation myths provide an explanation of the origin of the universe in all its complexity. They are an important part of most mythological systems. Creation myths often invoke primal gods and animals, titanic struggles between opposing forces or the death and/or dismemberment of these gods or animals as the means whereby the universe and its components were created.
The Big Bang theory wasn't developed as an explanation of the origin of the universe in all its complexity but as the best explanation of the available evidence. (The expansion of the universe, the age of things, etc.) It answers specific questions. It also does not invoke primal gods or animals or titanical struggles between opposing forces or the death and/or dismemberment of any gods or animals.

In this document the word "myth" will be defined as a story of forgotten or vague origin, basically religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalize one or more aspects of the world or a society.
The Big Bang theory certainly is NOT a story of forgoten or vague origin that is basically religious or supernatural in nature.

By the way, I brought up ID and Creation Science and the Judeo-Christian Creation Myth to point out 1)what our culture's current creation myth is and 2)that these are the beliefs held by the majority of the public who reject the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory because they view it as an issue of belief and not science. (In other words, if you want to see who is treating these scientific ideas as religious or mythology, it is the people who reject these ideas.) If there are a few people who believe in the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory for dogmatic reasons, they are an extreme minority and not at all a sufficient force in the culture to determine what our mythology is.

Now as to the bolded. That's probably the exact point of this thread. Because, YES IT DOES. Keep in mind that I am NOT talking about the Science, I've stated that over and over again in this thread. The science and scientists involved for the most part probably keep it pretty pure.

BUT the way it is presented to the public, and the public reaction to it MOST CERTAINLY DOES turn it into a Creation Myth. That's my entire point.
No, it doesn't. As you point out several times, you're not talking about the science of the Big Bang Theory, but about what you claim is a popular perception of it (and which I've pointed out frequently is certainly NOT the popular perception of it but an extreme minority one). Even if most people in the world had that misperception, it still doesn't change it into a myth. (See the definition given above.)

The fact that this science is SOMETIMES or OCCASIONALLY (but certainly not always) poorly presented to the public doesn't make it into a creation myth. Look again at the definitions of the Creation Myth and myth that you provided. Now read up on what the Big Bang Theory is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang), how it developed, what lines of evidence led to it. (Nothing supernatural or religious, no struggling gods, no dismembered animals, no vague or unknown origins. In fact, it's science.)

Even if some people misunderstand it, I don't think anyone sees it as a religious or supernatural narrative involving gods or dismembered animals that magically/supernaturally caused the universe to happen. I don't believe there is even one person who has THAT distorted a view of the Big Bang Theory. We know specifically how and where and by whom the theory was developed. Even if popular perception doesn't know the specific names, I think most everyone realizes that it was developed by physicists within the last century.

Lithrael

19th July 2008, 08:14 PM

Once again for those who have not read the entire thread. Posing a dinosaur in a certain way that suggests a behavior, is Evolutionary ART.

In other words saying "We know that the T rex ate meat because it has sharp teeth" is not the same thing as posing a T rex in a hunting position. Hyena's have sharp teeth and they are scavangers. There's debate to behavior on this. Drawing or illustrating a dinosaur running through the terrain attacking another dinosaur is Evolutionary art. Its not proven or fact or even theory as fact. It remains hypothesis. Yet it is often presented as fact. This is what I mean.

I've known since I was like four, that science is a best-theory game and that's how paleontology works. In every class I remember they'd touch on the history of reconstruction and mention the classic Iguanadon with its misplaced thumb spikes and the Apatosaur with its wrong head and wrong name. If the great American/British/etc public doesn't get this they are simply not interested enough to pay attention as kids or to look it up as adults. I keep trying to tell you if the science shows were more dry they would not be watched. And you keep saying kids get all their learnin' from the intertubes these days anyway, so they can all go and read an article like this: http://www.geotimes.org/jan06/feature_drawingdinos.html and there, the problem's all cleared up.

Seriously, the people who are confused about how science works are the people who are not interested in science. I don't see your hypothetical pop-science-dogma-religious-state coming to pass, because there are plenty of other things for politicians to use to polarize the public - things they actually give half a crap about, rather than things they are used to taking for granted, ignoring, or noticing with half-interest when it's on TV.

blobru

19th July 2008, 10:37 PM

... Here's an article I haven't read yet

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/2141/landau.pdf ...

Nice article. Thanks for the link. :)

Briefly, Landau argues that science uses narrative forms: even the simplest lab report resembles a story: object -- procedure -- results -- conclusion. People love storytelling. Narratives of human evolution naturally take on the form of myths, where the end of the hero's quest is "humanity", heroic trials arise from changes in the environment, and helpful gifts are beneficial adaptations from natural selection. Mythic narrative is a very human way to communicate theory, so science should consciously embrace it, and might even study it as such.

... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Gee

Here's the article again in case you missed it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/18/dinosaurs ...

Been awhile since I watched some of Walking with Dinosaurs, but I can appreciate Gee's criticism: its resemblance to nature documentary might be confusing for scientifically naive viewers; maybe a little "interpretation only" caveat to start each episode to clue them in was in order.

I did find it funny however that five years after his criticism of fanciful extrapolation in science media, the same Henry Gee would author this:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm270/blobru/tSoM-E-1.jpg

"Remember Tolkienites, only a myth -- don't try this at home!" :D

UnrepentantSinner

20th July 2008, 12:51 AM

Once again for those who have not read the entire thread. Posing a dinosaur in a certain way that suggests a behavior, is Evolutionary ART.

In other words saying "We know that the T rex ate meat because it has sharp teeth" is not the same thing as posing a T rex in a hunting position. Hyena's have sharp teeth and they are scavangers. There's debate to behavior on this. Drawing or illustrating a dinosaur running through the terrain attacking another dinosaur is Evolutionary art. Its not proven or fact or even theory as fact. It remains hypothesis. Yet it is often presented as fact. This is what I mean.

A while back I watched part of a show on History about how the Greeks might have found bones of megafauna or fossils of dinosaurs and it's from these findings that their mythological creatures we developed. The difference between now and then is that we have a greater evidence to imagination (or analogy*) ratio today.

We don't just have a handfull of bones and some idea of how they might fit together from which a diarama of Cretaceous terror conjured. We have thousands of finds and over a dozen different types of fossils from bones to footprints to egg clutches to coprolites. We actually can tell a lot about their behavior from this matrix of fossil evidences.

And, actually, hyenas are very effective hunters. There are very few specialized scavengers (vultures being one of the few I can think of off hand) while most hunters will scavenge including lions, monitor lizards and eagles.

* Many early representations of dinosaurs were based on how analogous they were to modern reptiles (see Iguanadon, etc.)

truethat

20th July 2008, 02:51 AM

No it's not--even based on the two definitions of myth you just presented.

The Big Bang theory wasn't developed as an explanation of the origin of the universe in all its complexity but as the best explanation of the available evidence. (The expansion of the universe, the age of things, etc.) It answers specific questions. It also does not invoke primal gods or animals or titanical struggles between opposing forces or the death and/or dismemberment of any gods or animals.

The Big Bang theory certainly is NOT a story of forgoten or vague origin that is basically religious or supernatural in nature.

By the way, I brought up ID and Creation Science and the Judeo-Christian Creation Myth to point out 1)what our culture's current creation myth is and 2)that these are the beliefs held by the majority of the public who reject the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory because they view it as an issue of belief and not science. (In other words, if you want to see who is treating these scientific ideas as religious or mythology, it is the people who reject these ideas.) If there are a few people who believe in the theory of evolution and the Big Bang Theory for dogmatic reasons, they are an extreme minority and not at all a sufficient force in the culture to determine what our mythology is.

No, it doesn't. As you point out several times, you're not talking about the science of the Big Bang Theory, but about what you claim is a popular perception of it (and which I've pointed out frequently is certainly NOT the popular perception of it but an extreme minority one). Even if most people in the world had that misperception, it still doesn't change it into a myth. (See the definition given above.)

The fact that this science is SOMETIMES or OCCASIONALLY (but certainly not always) poorly presented to the public doesn't make it into a creation myth. Look again at the definitions of the Creation Myth and myth that you provided. Now read up on what the Big Bang Theory is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang), how it developed, what lines of evidence led to it. (Nothing supernatural or religious, no struggling gods, no dismembered animals, no vague or unknown origins. In fact, it's science.)

Even if some people misunderstand it, I don't think anyone sees it as a religious or supernatural narrative involving gods or dismembered animals that magically/supernaturally caused the universe to happen. I don't believe there is even one person who has THAT distorted a view of the Big Bang Theory. We know specifically how and where and by whom the theory was developed. Even if popular perception doesn't know the specific names, I think most everyone realizes that it was developed by physicists within the last century.

You are cherry picking what you want from the quotes. A. It doesn't say ALL myths invoke these images it says often.

I think you are misunderstanding me to say HERE and NOW this is happening. I've been pretty consistant in saying I'm worried that this is the DIRECTION that this going in and that in say 30 odd years this is going to be the next religion or modern myth.

You say that Big Bang wasn't come up with in an effort to explain origins but just pure science. I don't think I'd agree with that simplification. It gives too much credit to the human ability to be objective. While it may not have been the main thrust of the research it certainly was part of the examination.

Also Henry Gee is a pretty good evolutionary biologist and palentologist. His interests that cross over into myth, don't negate the fact that he is a scientist first and foremost so the Middle Earth thing is in poor form. Although it is pretty funny. But it doesn't detract from his position as an editor at Nature.

BUT I do think that he understands the same things I'm saying BECAUSE he has an interest in myths. As I stated from the beginning, when you study myth the language becomes very obvious to you.

One more thing, the modern myth of the day in the US especially is the Judeo Christian myth. I don't want anyone to think I'm suggesting otherwise. I don't like myth once it tips over into religion. I have little patience for the way that people try to control the world. However I do recognize that realistically people are going to try to change the world into their own personal preference.

Unrepentant Sinner, maybe I need to brush up on my science but I don't think that the behavior of an iguana really can be factually counted on to help understand the behavior of an animal we have never seen from a period of time we know very little about. There seems to be this misunderstanding that we actually have a LOT of information but we don't. We are basing our assessments on what little information we have found, in fossil form. I think Gee says as much in the article I quoted. While I might concede we know more than would be expected based on physical proof of things, we can't say that we KNOW behavior for a fact.

Lithrael

20th July 2008, 08:57 AM

Unrepentant Sinner, maybe I need to brush up on my science but I don't think that the behavior of an iguana really can be factually counted on to help understand the behavior of an animal we have never seen from a period of time we know very little about. There seems to be this misunderstanding that we actually have a LOT of information but we don't. We are basing our assessments on what little information we have found, in fossil form. I think Gee says as much in the article I quoted. While I might concede we know more than would be expected based on physical proof of things, we can't say that we KNOW behavior for a fact.

So are we back to prefacing every sentence in a dino show with a disclaimer? I am really really sure that the people who are really interested in this stuff let the DVD spin for another half an hour after Walking with Dinosaurs to watch The Making of Walking with Dinosaurs, or brought it up on the BBC website.

I would not mind more emphasis on what we base our theories and ideas on, but there is not much room for that in pop science TV, and the more in depth information IS AVAILABLE at many levels of accessibility to those who are at all interested. The site I linked last post is full of perfectly approachable info and I found it on the first page of a google search.

It seems like you're talking about making the American Idol lovin' public truly understand science just from watching TV. I do not think that is going to happen.

JoeTheJuggler

20th July 2008, 10:51 AM

You are cherry picking what you want from the quotes. A. It doesn't say ALL myths invoke these images it says often.
The animal imagery wasn't the ONLY bit of the definition I quoted and commented on. In fact, the definition doesn't fit the Big Bang Theory at all.

I think you are misunderstanding me to say HERE and NOW this is happening. I've been pretty consistant in saying I'm worried that this is the DIRECTION that this going in and that in say 30 odd years this is going to be the next religion or modern myth.
You're right, I certainly thought you were saying this is something that is happening now or has already happened. If there was a misunderstanding, the problem was with statements you made such as (note the tense--and total lack of indication that you're talking about something happening in the future):
___________________
These same answers are the reason that people are turning Origins and Big Bang into Creation myths.
Confusing people for the sake of the best understanding at the time, is not science.

Lets put it this way, to me when you do this to science it no longer IS science. Its mythology.

Big Bang is a Creation Myth as it is presented in most cases to the public. The sad part is that it doesn't need to be.
___________________________
Also, you continue to ignore my observation that the lion's share of distorted (or dogmatic) thinking about these scientific theories is held by those who reject them and not by those who accept them. You're arguing that this "mythologizing" is some large cultural trend, but the facts disagree with you.

You say that Big Bang wasn't come up with in an effort to explain origins but just pure science. I don't think I'd agree with that simplification. It gives too much credit to the human ability to be objective. While it may not have been the main thrust of the research it certainly was part of the examination.
I'm sorry but I don't see this point as a matter of opinion. It's recent history how the Big Bang Theory developed. It was a theory to explain very specific phenomena (among others, the red shift of distant galaxies showing that objects further away from us are moving further away--i.e. the universe is expanding). It made a prediction (the presence of background microwave radiation) that was detected by subsequent observation.

This is not the same as someone trying to answer the question, "Where did everything come from?" and inventing a story from whole cloth. The Big Bang Theory subsequently was able to answer that question back to some initial condition (but does not address the question of how that condition came to be).

Foster Zygote

20th July 2008, 07:09 PM

These same answers are the reason that people are turning Origins and Big Bang into Creation myths.
What people are doing this? Can you offer any specific examples?

Also, I still don't understand how you can claim that scientists are in any way to blame for the hostilities of those who do not like what science has revealed to us. In what specific ways have scientists been guilty of promoting conflict with the religiously dogmatic?

UnrepentantSinner

20th July 2008, 10:57 PM

Unrepentant Sinner, maybe I need to brush up on my science...

I've been debating evolution for a decade now and I've seen the objection that we cannot know behavior numerous times so I have looked into it. As I noted, there are numerous things we can conclude about extinct animals from their different fossils (bones, egg clutches, coprolites, tracks, etc.) including behavior. I'd suggest you brush up on forensics and then move on to the biology.

...but I don't think that the behavior of an iguana really can be factually counted on to help understand the behavior of an animal we have never seen from a period of time we know very little about.

This tells me you didn't get what I was referring to. My point was that in the earliest days, when we had very little fossil evidence, assumptions were drawn from modern analogues. Iguanadon was named because it's teeth resembled that of modern iguanas. The earliest ideas about dinosaurs was that their appearance and behavior was that of giant lizards, but over time, and with the discovery of more fossils (both bones and other remains) it was realized that wasn't the case. We've had almost 200 years of dinosaur paleontology and information from many different disciplines tell us a lot about both their appearance and behavior. And I bed to differ, we know quite a lot about the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.

There seems to be this misunderstanding that we actually have a LOT of information but we don't.

Actually the misunderstanding is just the opposite.

We are basing our assessments on what little information we have found, in fossil form. I think Gee says as much in the article I quoted. While I might concede we know more than would be expected based on physical proof of things, we can't say that we KNOW behavior for a fact.

If the burden of proof one places on evidence is a video tape or living example for us to know with any certainty things that happened we were not witness to, I hope you are never a juror on a case involving forensic evidence.

truethat

21st July 2008, 02:29 AM

OK a few things.

One is that I'm not as secure on the internet as I thought. When I take a long time to write a reply it cuts out and erases everything so I'll keep it short and sweet.

One.

I'm not saying that the current situation is not that Creationists are the dominant problem, nor am I blaming science for the ruckus involving politics, education and the ID debate. So lets just put that aside.

Two
I'm having a philosophical conversation. I'm not presenting a thesis, I'm working out an idea. When I'm hit with a ton of "well explain this" I tend to make errors in wording. This is why I'm trying to stay focused on one point. I'm not trying to ignore things.

Three
I'm not well versed in science and I've never claimed to be. I don't think saying something is a creation myth means that it is no longer science. The science behind the story remains SCIENCE, its the story that loses the science. I'm not saying (or don't mean to suggest) that Evolution, Origins or Big Bang are ONLY creation myths. I'm saying that the public is responding to the aspects of the science that "remind them" of creation myths because people tend to really be drawn to those aspects of a story.

Four
I'm not saying we don't have a ton of information and data to go by. I totally understand that when you have people dedicated to science they can find out a whole hell of a lot of things that the common person would assume is a huge puzzle. Analyzing dino dung for example TELLS us what they ate. Got it.

Five
I AM saying that the information we DO have to study, might just be a drop in the ocean of the actual time period. It may be that there are things we haven't even conceived of that we have no way of knowing existed because no evidence was left behind. The iguanadon is a good example. Dinosaurs were thought to be lizards because that's the information we had at the time. While we have made enormous strides over the years I personally believe we haven't even come close to knowing what the reality of the past was.

Six
I'm not blaming scientists for the hostilities of Creationists. I only think they've gotten too drawn into the debate. I understand that Creationists are threatening but I think they are losing power. If they were WINNING court cases then maybe I'd understand the panic. Just because someone sues someone doesn't mean they are a real threat, in my opinion.

I'll come back more with Creation myth info in a bit.

truethat

21st July 2008, 02:38 AM

One last thing. People keep comparing this to forensic evidence. I think its entirely different to make predictions about a time period we've actually lived in that is inhabited by creatures we've seen and understand. Even in current time periods we've made mistakes about animal behavior. I'm not talking about physical evidence.

No court case would base an entire case on the alleged behavior or motives of a person without the physical evidence to back it up. Likewise physical evidence doesn't necessarily explain motive or what a person did. Even with that evidence and motive, we are on very shakey ground. The court is based on "reasonable doubt" for this very reason. You can suggest that Johnny Smith did indeed kill the woman for the insurance policy but I believe this is considered circumstantial evidence and not something a successful lawyer would build a case on without physical evidence to back it up.

We can predict the animal speed for example based on foot tracks and the way the skeleton is formed, we can base eating habits on what was defecated and what kind of teeth the animal has.

In the two videos I posted called Walking With the Dinosaurs the videos each make opposite predictions. One states that the T rex will abandon her young after 2 months if she doesn't eat them. The next video shows a large baby dino being protected by mommy dino who is "fiercely protective of her young"

This isn't forensic evidence by any stretch. This is flat out story telling for entertainment value. I do recognize the difference and am a little puzzled why others do not.

Additionally if you had a case where you have no idea whodunnit, you still are basing the case on a human being whose behaviors and motivations are predictable because we've seen human's before. I don't see what's so outrageous about me being skeptical about the supposed behavior of an animal we've never seen, especially since we've made predictions about behavior of the same animal that new information has overturned. Like the dragging of the T Rex tail.

truethat

21st July 2008, 02:56 AM

So are we back to prefacing every sentence in a dino show with a disclaimer? I am really really sure that the people who are really interested in this stuff let the DVD spin for another half an hour after Walking with Dinosaurs to watch The Making of Walking with Dinosaurs, or brought it up on the BBC website.

I would not mind more emphasis on what we base our theories and ideas on, but there is not much room for that in pop science TV, and the more in depth information IS AVAILABLE at many levels of accessibility to those who are at all interested. The site I linked last post is full of perfectly approachable info and I found it on the first page of a google search.

It seems like you're talking about making the American Idol lovin' public truly understand science just from watching TV. I do not think that is going to happen.

I totally get what you are saying. I understand that we can't be responsible for making people think critically. I think that's what you take issue with?

My point is simple, not nearly as complicated as people are making it. Just get OUT of the habit of storying up the science, and into the habit of using scientific language when presenting things to the public.

Also maybe really emphasize when something is total fiction for entertainment. Like I said everyone knows Jurassic Park is a science fiction story. But Walking With the Dinos is presented like a Nature Documentary.

I mean I guess we'd call it the Spinal Tap of dinosaurs??

UnrepentantSinner

21st July 2008, 03:04 AM

One last thing. People keep comparing this to forensic evidence. I think its entirely different to make predictions about a time period we've actually lived in that is inhabited by creatures we've seen and understand.

How different do you think things were in the past? Do you think that rain might have fallen upwards or that plants were ambulatory carnivores?

Even in current time periods we've made mistakes about animal behavior.

Examples?

In the two videos I posted called Walking With the Dinosaurs the videos each make opposite predictions. One states that the T rex will abandon her young after 2 months if she doesn't eat them. The next video shows a large baby dino being protected by mommy dino who is "fiercely protective of her young"

This isn't forensic evidence by any stretch. This is flat out story telling for entertainment value. I do recognize the difference and am a little puzzled why others do not.

I'm still puzzled as to why you think Walking With Dinosaurs is the sum total of the evidences we have about dinosaur behavior.

...we've made predictions about behavior of the same animal that new information has overturned.

I'm also puzzled as to why you think this is a bad thing. To me, correcting past misperceptions/misinterpretations is a good thing. What are we supposed to do in the meantime? Not publish any papers nor have any popular media portrayals of dinosaurs until we're 100% completely sure (which you seem to be suggesting we won't until we build a time machine and go back to observe them directly)?

drkitten

21st July 2008, 08:10 AM

My point is simple, not nearly as complicated as people are making it.

You know, it's possible for a point to be simple, and totally, completely wrong. If you told me that the Earth was shaped like a banana, that would be a good example.

Your suggestion about teaching science is another good example.

drkitten

21st July 2008, 08:17 AM

We can predict the animal speed for example based on foot tracks and the way the skeleton is formed, we can base eating habits on what was defecated and what kind of teeth the animal has.

In the two videos I posted called Walking With the Dinosaurs the videos each make opposite predictions. One states that the T rex will abandon her young after 2 months if she doesn't eat them. The next video shows a large baby dino being protected by mommy dino who is "fiercely protective of her young"

This isn't forensic evidence by any stretch. This is flat out story telling for entertainment value. I do recognize the difference and am a little puzzled why others do not.

Partly because we're more familiar with the physical evidence than you are.

In the case of dinosaurs, we've found, for example, female adult fossils in extremely close proximity to young of the same species, which is prima facie evidence of parenting behavior. Since no animals are known to display parenting behavior without protecting young, it's a very reasonable conclusion-based-on-evidence that that particular dinosaur was "fiercely protective of her young."

We've similarly found fossils of dinosaurs literally sitting on their eggs, which is pretty good evidence for brooding behavior like hens.

truethat

21st July 2008, 08:26 AM

Partly because we're more familiar with the physical evidence than you are.

In the case of dinosaurs, we've found, for example, female adult fossils in extremely close proximity to young of the same species, which is prima facie evidence of parenting behavior. Since no animals are known to display parenting behavior without protecting young, it's a very reasonable conclusion-based-on-evidence that that particular dinosaur was "fiercely protective of her young."

We've similarly found fossils of dinosaurs literally sitting on their eggs, which is pretty good evidence for brooding behavior like hens.

Really? So the evidence points to the fact that dinos are protective of their young. So then why did Walking with the Dinosaurs present that if the animals didn't make their way on in about 2 months it would likely be eaten by its mother?

truethat

21st July 2008, 08:30 AM

You know, it's possible for a point to be simple, and totally, completely wrong. If you told me that the Earth was shaped like a banana, that would be a good example.

Your suggestion about teaching science is another good example.

drkitten the fact that you are being so sarcastic and rude shows me that you are not being objective. While I'd love to have a conversation with you I see that you are not really looking at the information I've provided but are simply up on a high horse that how dare the minion question science. If this is going to be your approach I'm not going to bother answering you any more.

I've noticed that people like you like to get into, what was it quix called it, knock down drag outs.

That's not why I'm here. I am not talking about science as science. I'm talking about something else that you don't seem to be able to put your pissedoffedness down long enough to see.

So if you'd like to weigh in without feeling like its required for you to take a two by four across the side of my head each time, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise you are giving me a head ache.

arthwollipot

21st July 2008, 08:31 AM

Truethat, I'd just like to say that your avatar seems very appropriate. The term "curmudgeonly" springs to mind.

truethat

21st July 2008, 08:37 AM

How different do you think things were in the past? Do you think that rain might have fallen upwards or that plants were ambulatory carnivores?

No. Why the extreme examples. Is it all or nothing? Either we understand it or the rain falls up wards? It doesn't have to be that drastic for us to be wrong in our conclusions. Its hubris to think otherwise.
Examples?

Are you serious? Did you even bother to look? It's pretty common in science and I think you know that.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070523132701.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717201837.htm

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-10/bas-abs102207.php

I'm still puzzled as to why you think Walking With Dinosaurs is the sum total of the evidences we have about dinosaur behavior.

Where did I say this? Is this the way of circumventing what I'm saying? To suggest that ONLY walking ... is the one that does this? What reasonable person would presume that this is the SUM TOTAL of the evidence about dinosaur behavior. This is a popular example and I'm using it. It quite obviously doesn't mean I think this is the ONLY evidence. I don't even know why you'd ask me this.

I'm also puzzled as to why you think this is a bad thing. To me, correcting past misperceptions/misinterpretations is a good thing. What are we supposed to do in the meantime? Not publish any papers nor have any popular media portrayals of dinosaurs until we're 100% completely sure (which you seem to be suggesting we won't until we build a time machine and go back to observe them directly)?

What do I think we should do in the meantime? Why do we need to DO? Anything? Why can't science be an open ended investigation because that's what I think science really is supposed to be. Why do we NEED to have media portrayals that are based on artists interpretations being passed off as authentic representation when it is not? I have no problem with science fiction doing this. I have no problem with Jurassic Park and King Kong and any other fun venues for the curiosities of science to be played out. Why does it need to be played out in the fields of science as well? You make it sound like we have no outlet for these speculations and creative ideas? Why would you suggest that it needs to be done in the arena of science? There is a venue for entertainment, and the public is extraordinarily receptive to it. So why the need to do it in science?

To me the problem I have with it, is in all honesty, I think its stupid and lazy. The idea that its too much of an effort to state the truth is a very bizarre conclusion in my opinion.

Sorry for this format. Hope its clear where my replies are.

truethat

21st July 2008, 08:50 AM

Truethat, I'd just like to say that your avatar seems very appropriate. The term "curmudgeonly" springs to mind.

And the personal attacks start. LOL. Actually I like curmudgeonly. So if you didn't mean it that way great.

Frankly my experience has been with this conversation that I am correct in my observations and that people on principle want to disagree with me. So they start putting words in my mouth and trying to twist it in a different direction.

I can't see how anyone would disagree with what I'm saying from an objective standpoint. Science should present SCIENCE period and end of story. If they are going to rail about how only Science should be in the classroom then they should heed their own advice and leave the story telling and "lets make it more interesting" out of it.

And if that bores people my advice is grow up and stop expecting the world to lower the bar to make it more palatable to you. The comments have pointed out that Science really suffers in the US. I wonder why other countries that don't feel they need to hollywood science up seem to fare better in the world of science??

Curious.

Lithrael

21st July 2008, 10:17 AM

The comments have pointed out that Science really suffers in the US. I wonder why other countries that don't feel they need to hollywood science up seem to fare better in the world of science?

"Other countries?" Walking With Dinosaurs is a BBC production, it's from the UK.

It seems like you're talking about making the American Idol lovin' public truly understand science just from watching TV. I do not think that is going to happen.
I totally get what you are saying. I understand that we can't be responsible for making people think critically. I think that's what you take issue with?

No, no, no. I'm just saying most people DON'T think critically and are not very interested in doing so when they are relaxing. I am totally and completely fine with the educational system trying harder to teach critical thinking and the principles of science. I'm saying I don't think you can use TV to teach people critical thinking - and I don't think you can use TV to teach people science if they do not already understand the principles of science.

I find your conclusion that this means we should not do any pop science, very bizarre. I like to watch pop science shows, I think they are fun, and I think they throw up lots of good sparks of interest for those who DO really like science to go and find out something new, & so I want them to continue to be made.

paximperium

21st July 2008, 10:44 AM

And the personal attacks start. LOL. Actually I like curmudgeonly. So if you didn't mean it that way great.
Aren't you going to whine and claim that someone is calling you a Creationists? That seems to be your primary reasoning for why so many people that debate you think that you are dishonest and have a moronic argument. Perhaps you should look at yourself before pointing fingers.

Frankly my experience has been with this conversation that I am correct in my observations and that people on principle want to disagree with me. So they start putting words in my mouth and trying to twist it in a different direction.
Perhaps people disagree with you because you are wrong? Nah, it can't be because you are right and everyone else is out to get you.

I can't see how anyone would disagree with what I'm saying from an objective standpoint. Science should present SCIENCE period and end of story. If they are going to rail about how only Science should be in the classroom then they should heed their own advice and leave the story telling and "lets make it more interesting" out of it.
Why are so many arguing with you? Because your entire line of argument continues to be an unjustified claim. Many many many people have asked you for evidence in what way this is bad for science education but you keep falling back onto mythic mumbo-jumbo. Anecdotal, philosphical dancing does not equal evidence.

And if that bores people my advice is grow up and stop expecting the world to lower the bar to make it more palatable to you. The comments have pointed out that Science really suffers in the US. I wonder why other countries that don't feel they need to hollywood science up seem to fare better in the world of science??
Yes, why? Perhaps you should read up on a couple of papers on this issue, you know the science based ones based on economics, sociology and psychology? Oh because it MUST be because of YOUR pet belief based on YOUR pet myth theory without any justification or evidence to support your assertion.

Curious.
No you're not. You have your little dogmatic belief and have dishonestly refused to answer questions or provide any evidence to support your claim.

quixotecoyote

21st July 2008, 11:40 AM

Really? So the evidence points to the fact that dinos are protective of their young. So then why did Walking with the Dinosaurs present that if the animals didn't make their way on in about 2 months it would likely be eaten by its mother?

This is the kind of stuff I was talking about. Is it mythical because it's wrong or because it employs a mythical langauge drawing on metaphors accumulated over the course of human history through adoption from mythical stories? If the former, you need to get your definitions straight. If the latter, you need to point out the mythical aspects, not factual errors.

drkitten

21st July 2008, 11:40 AM

Really? So the evidence points to the fact that dinos are protective of their young.

Basically, what you're complaining about, then, is that science writers are familiar with evidence that you don't know about, and are working it into their presentation.

So then why did Walking with the Dinosaurs present that if the animals didn't make their way on in about 2 months it would likely be eaten by its mother?

Presumably because of other fossil evidence we have of fossilized mothers with their half-eaten juveniles, which we can relate to the behavior of other modern animals in the same way that we can relate the brooding behavior of dinosaurs to modern hens. I could probably dig up the direct references to the fossil finds, but it seems pointless.

I am not talking about science as science.

And that's exactly the problem. The writers whom you criticize generally are talking about science as science; they're generally very familiar with what the current best scientific theories are about the exhibits they're describing. In fact, they're usually more familiar than the general public (which is why they're creating the exhibits while we're just visting them). When they put in little tidbits of animal behavior, they've generally got a relatively good reason for doing so that is justified by evidence.

The simple fact that you don't know the evidence isn't the their problem, nor is your personal incredulity an argument against the actual evidence.

Several times in this thread, you've made statements like "we can't know how dinosaurs behaved." The simple fact, as I've demonstrated several times, is that you're wrong. We've got lots of evidence about dinosaur behavior, and we're getting more and more as science progresses. You didn't believe that we could show mother dinosaurs defending their young --- except that we can. You didn't believe we could infer how dinosaurs moved -- except that we can.

Now, granted, some of our current inferences may turn out to be wrong upon further evidence, but that's true of any science -- and of law as well. But that's no reason not to take full advantage of the evidence we have and to treat all the evidence as provisionally true until overturned by other evidence.

So if you'd like to weigh in without feeling like its required for you to take a two by four across the side of my head each time, I'd appreciate it.

I'm sure you would --- but I see no reason to comply.

The simple fact is that you, by your own admission, are in over your head and have no reason to be taking part in this conversation. I've never spoken to the people behind Walking with Dinosaurs, but I have spoken to many of the people behind many science museums, and I feel confident that they can justify every line in the presentation. (In fact, they are usually delighted when someone asks "but how do we know that?" because there is usually a really awesomely cool bit of science behind it --- but detailing the science part detracts from the pedagogical mission of the general presentation.)

Foster Zygote

21st July 2008, 11:47 AM

Hello truethat, I'm sure you will agree that I have been very polite in all of my posts in which I've addressed you. As I am being polite and I genuinely want to discuss the issues, I request a response to one of the following queries:

These same answers are the reason that people are turning Origins and Big Bang into Creation myths.
What people are doing this? Can you offer any specific examples?

And from your Skepticism & Evolution thread:
This wasn't a troll thread. And I was accused of being a creationist simply for expressing skepticism about something general about Evolution.
Could you please direct me to the post in which you are accused of being a creationist? I've read through this entire thread and I can't seem to find one.

Or any of my questions in post 269, page 7 of this thread.

truethat

21st July 2008, 02:52 PM

This is the kind of stuff I was talking about. Is it mythical because it's wrong or because it employs a mythical langauge drawing on metaphors accumulated over the course of human history through adoption from mythical stories? If the former, you need to get your definitions straight. If the latter, you need to point out the mythical aspects, not factual errors.

Its neither. Its mythical because of the way people are responding to it. That's why I can't say that its "science's fault"

Science isn't DOING this to people. People are DOING this to science.

Like I've stated before I think science is unwittingly helping it along by using narratives, (among other things)

Myth is part of the human psyche.

Let me just stop with this and see if you get what I mean. Sometimes I think I over explain and tend to confuse the issue.

truethat

21st July 2008, 03:03 PM

Basically, what you're complaining about, then, is that science writers are familiar with evidence that you don't know about, and are working it into their presentation.

Presumably because of other fossil evidence we have of fossilized mothers with their half-eaten juveniles, which we can relate to the behavior of other modern animals in the same way that we can relate the brooding behavior of dinosaurs to modern hens. I could probably dig up the direct references to the fossil finds, but it seems pointless.

Presumably? You are joking right? How is this in any way scientific to make a statement like this? Please get those easy access direct references to the fossil finds of mother T rex's with half eaten baby T-rexes in their bellies and I will concede that I am mistaken. Then I can understand your frustration.

If you don't find the evidence you purport is out there because "Science said it so it must be true" then you have made my case for me. Either way it works for me. Because you do make a case for me not being knowledgable enough to know what is or is not true. That's why it irks me when stuff is made up.

And that's exactly the problem. The writers whom you criticize generally are talking about science as science; they're generally very familiar with what the current best scientific theories are about the exhibits they're describing. In fact, they're usually more familiar than the general public (which is why they're creating the exhibits while we're just visting them). When they put in little tidbits of animal behavior, they've generally got a relatively good reason for doing so that is justified by evidence.

The simple fact that you don't know the evidence isn't the their problem, nor is your personal incredulity an argument against the actual evidence.

Several times in this thread, you've made statements like "we can't know how dinosaurs behaved." The simple fact, as I've demonstrated several times, is that you're wrong. We've got lots of evidence about dinosaur behavior, and we're getting more and more as science progresses. You didn't believe that we could show mother dinosaurs defending their young --- except that we can. You didn't believe we could infer how dinosaurs moved -- except that we can.

Um I just stated that I did think we could predict some things. I even gave examples of how fast a dino moved and whether it ate meat and what not. I think you aren't reading my posts really. Because I just said it. The evidence you gave for mothers defending their young doesn't prove in my opinion that dinosaurs defended their young. What you are stating is in my opinion, YOUR OPINION and the OPINION of other scientists. Which is not the same thing as a fact. I do believe that this would be regarded as a HYPOTHESIS and not a theory or a fact in science to say that mothers protect their young based on the evidence you have stated.

I think that if you are teaching science and can't see what you just stated is NOT scientific, then you are going to have a hard time understanding my perspective. And that's fine. You still haven't explained why you are so angry.

Now, granted, some of our current inferences may turn out to be wrong upon further evidence, but that's true of any science -- and of law as well. But that's no reason not to take full advantage of the evidence we have and to treat all the evidence as provisionally true until overturned by other evidence.

Why not? No one is saying we can't say "This is what we THINK happened" but as you stated earlier, I do believe it was you, "IF we do that that just leaves the door wide open for the Creationists to come blustering through"

So what I see is a reluctance to state things accurately because of concern about creationist agenda.

I'm sure you would --- but I see no reason to comply.

The simple fact is that you, by your own admission, are in over your head and have no reason to be taking part in this conversation. I've never spoken to the people behind Walking with Dinosaurs, but I have spoken to many of the people behind many science museums, and I feel confident that they can justify every line in the presentation. (In fact, they are usually delighted when someone asks "but how do we know that?" because there is usually a really awesomely cool bit of science behind it --- but detailing the science part detracts from the pedagogical mission of the general presentation.)

I have every right to take part in a conversation I started which for some of the mature members on here has been an exploration. For others its been a ranting against agenda bias and just generally rude. I don't choose to respond to people this way in a conversation. Your choice to do so is a reflection on YOU and how you communicate with people who don't know as much about science as you do. And its pretty sad in my opinion.

quixotecoyote

21st July 2008, 03:06 PM

Its neither. Its mythical because of the way people are responding to it. That's why I can't say that its "science's fault"

Science isn't DOING this to people. People are DOING this to science.

Like I've stated before I think science is unwittingly helping it along by using narratives, (among other things)

Myth is part of the human psyche.

Let me just stop with this and see if you get what I mean. Sometimes I think I over explain and tend to confuse the issue.

While I think an argument can be made that mythic status is partially based on the use of strong cultural themes, which are only existent because people recognize and promote those themes, I don't see how this ties into your example at all.

As I understand your position as you just stated, the movie you are criticizing is myth, not because of any properties of it's subject matter, accuracy, language use, or narrative structure, but solely because of the audience response.

Ok, let's run with that. What is the audience response (link?) and what characteristics of that response cause the movie to be classified as myth?

truethat

21st July 2008, 03:10 PM

While I think an argument can be made that mythic status is partially based on the use of strong cultural themes, which are only existent because people recognize and promote those themes, I don't see how this ties into your example at all.

As I understand your position as you just stated, the movie you are criticizing is myth, not because of any properties of it's subject matter, accuracy, language use, or narrative structure, but solely because of the audience response.

Ok, let's run with that. What is the audience response (link?) and what characteristics of that response cause the movie to be classified as myth?

I can't really get into this too much but this is the conversation I'm trying to have. I don't have a nifty link to prove my point. I'm putting it out there. I have seen in my own experience what I'm talking about but I don't expect everyone to agree.

Gimme a sec. Someone needs to use the computer.

truethat

21st July 2008, 03:18 PM

truethat

21st July 2008, 03:21 PM

found a few things

Care of the Young
There's no fossil evidence that any theropods (meat-eaters like T. rex) took care of their young, but they may have taken care of the hatchlings for a short time in that vulnerable time right after hatching, like most birds do.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/trex/Trexintell.shtml

quixotecoyote

21st July 2008, 03:32 PM

ARG!!! The opportunity presents itself and I've got to share a computer.

What I see in "audience reponse" is that its a hugely popular series. Additionally in some of the other discussions I've seen language that suggests that people are positioning Evolution as the "opposite" of Creationism and vice versa.

There's language that people use that was ironically pointed out in the first reply, when people say they "Believe" in Evolution.

A large part of it is to me the way its become the battle of the two stories. Creationism versus Evolutionary Theory, Abiogenesis and Big Bang. If you question any of them you are automatically cast as a creationist as if this is the only other alternative.

Well, it more or less is, isn't it? Apart from those who are simply uninformed, is there a third position being advocated that I'm unaware of? It's the scientific position, the religious position, and the unaware position. Granted there's some fringers out there, but what specifically are you referring to?

The fact that people are pushing that THIS is the story. I'm not talking about scientists. I'm talking about uneducated people who know a little bit about the theories. And they take them as sort of a rejection of Creationism.
Well, they are. Creationism is a rejection of evolution and evolution is a rejection of creationism (as commonly defined). They are mutually exclusive propositions.

So far we're talking about issues of fact. I don't see where mythic criteria have come in.

One of the most significant indicators to me is the anger and hostility that comes out. I see this as an emotional attachment to the theory being the right one.

To me all these things have nothing to do with science.Most of the hostility I've seen comes from the dishonest tactics of the creationists, which you found out when you posted about skepticism of evolution without providing a basis for that skepticism. While I get that you were out for a troll to prove a point, you mimicked a dishonest tactic, "I disregard the evidence, but I won't say why," and reaped the hostility that came with it. That isn't science based as it's more about interpersonal interactions and legitimate debate tactics than the actual science, but you haven't provided a framework to class anger at dishonesty as myth.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...exintell.shtml (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinos/trex/Trexintell.shtml) Point?

truethat

21st July 2008, 03:33 PM

Zygote

I took this as an accusation as being a "closet creationist" Also after this point the thread started railing about Creationism when I hadn't said that this is why I was skeptical. I posted a very general statement and it went to the Creationist debate pretty quickly.

I'm not sure if you're trolling here to get an overreaction after getting your ideas denounced in the Religion forum, or if you're finally coming clean as a closet creationist as you were accused of being in that same forum.

Either way, colour me unimpressed.

Gimme a sec on the next part

truethat

21st July 2008, 03:40 PM

Well, it more or less is, isn't it? Apart from those who are simply uninformed, is there a third position being advocated that I'm unaware of? It's the scientific position, the religious position, and the unaware position. Granted there's some fringers out there, but what specifically are you referring to?

Well, they are. Creationism is a rejection of evolution and evolution is a rejection of creationism (as commonly defined). They are mutually exclusive propositions.

So far we're talking about issues of fact. I don't see where mythic criteria have come in.

Most of the hostility I've seen comes from the dishonest tactics of the creationists, which you found out when you posted about skepticism of evolution without providing a basis for that skepticism. While I get that you were out for a troll to prove a point, you mimicked a dishonest tactic, "I disregard the evidence, but I won't say why," and reaped the hostility that came with it. That isn't science based as it's more about interpersonal interactions and legitimate debate tactics than the actual science, but you haven't provided a framework to class anger at dishonesty as myth.

Point?

It concerns me that we've come to the conclusion that Big Bang or other theories related to Evolution WITHOUT THE EVIDENCE AND SCIENCE of Evolution (Edited to add that I don't mean that we don't have ANY evidence or science to back it up. I am NOT saying that its unscientific what has been suggested, just the way its being picked up) is being touted as the next new answer. Do me a favor and try to put what I'm saying into a sort of perspective. I know I'm all over the map here and I can't devote the attention I need to this right now. If you are interested in having the conversation about myth I would LOVE to have it with someone who knows what they are talking about.

But I need to go

And the link was for the dino statement not you

and I know I was being a troll when I started that thread, and I'm glad you saw it went down the path it did. Of course it would. That's my point. Its so ingrained into the mindset of some people that I could ONLY be a creationist.

People are arguing the stories.

I'll be back.

Lithrael

21st July 2008, 03:50 PM

(...)I know I was being a troll when I started that thread, and I'm glad you saw it went down the path it did. Of course it would. That's my point. Its so ingrained into the mindset of some people that I could ONLY be a creationist.

I'm starting to lose faith in your sincerity. It's been explained umpteen times now that a general statement of skepticism about evolution, with no real question or argument to go with it, IS what sets people's Creationist Troll meters off. And yet you keep saying "I only made a general statement of skepticism and they got all hostile right away," like it proves we consider genuine skeptical thoughts about evolution to be heretical. What's up with that? Do you just not believe us or what?

quixotecoyote

21st July 2008, 03:50 PM

For when you get back:

It concerns me that we've come to the conclusion that Big Bang or other theories related to Evolution WITHOUT THE EVIDENCE AND SCIENCE of Evolution is being touted as the next new answer. Do me a favor and try to put what I'm saying into a sort of perspective.

This is written weird, but I will attempt to parse.

We have the evidence and science to show that evolution and the big bang (which aren't that related, btw) are the most probable theories. From that I don't understand why you object that people use it as the new answer. Unless you posit that all answers to questions of human origin are mythic because the answers so far have largely been mythic, I don't see that you have a case.

I know I'm all over the map here and I can't devote the attention I need to this right now. If you are interested in having the conversation about myth I would LOVE to have it with someone who knows what they are talking about.It'd be a pleasure, but I really wish you would clearly, comprehensively, and concisely define how you are using the term myth, if it applies to actual texts (spoken or written) or if it's solely a product of interpretation, and what criteria are used to define it.

and I know I was being a troll when I started that thread, and I'm glad you saw it went down the path it did. Of course it would. That's my point. Its so ingrained into the mindset of some people that I could ONLY be a creationist.Again, is there another position besides scientific, religious, and unaware? Your OP said you were critical of the theory of evolution, which eliminated scientific and unaware as possibilities. What other category could you have fit into? If you had a legitimate concern or question you could have included it, that you did not placed you using both the position and the tactics of creationists.

People are arguing the stories.If you take a series of factual statements that refer to consecutive events and relate them in a chronological order, you have created a story. You have not, however, affected the fact or true value of those claims at all. Nor, in the absence of other factors, have you turned them into any common definition of myth. Again, I fail to grasp your issue.

I'll be back.I'll be around.

truethat

21st July 2008, 03:58 PM

That may or may not be the number one complaint of scientists. I'd be willing to bet that it comes second to funding. But at any rate, the lack of understanding of the scientific method is not a result of people knowing too much about what that method has taught us. If you want to argue that it is inadequate to teach scientific discoveries without also teaching the methodology used to arrive at those discoveries then I am with you 100%. But the scientific method is not so complex as to make it too much to ask that students also learn what its application has taught us. The answer to the "Kids don't know scientific methodology" complaint is not "Teach less science", but rather "Teach the methodology too

Zygote I think I said a few times that I was arguing against the intense panic regarding creationists. I don't see them as a horrible threat. I know what they are trying to do but I don't think they will be successful.

My posts were sort of trying to say "WORST CASE SCENARIO" they succeed, its not the end of science if they do. That's all. Of course I think Evolutionary Science should be taught in school. I can understand the confusion though because of the way I was posting.

I do think more focus needs to be on METHOD as I don't think most people understand it very well, myself included.

truethat

21st July 2008, 04:00 PM

For when you get back:

This is written weird, but I will attempt to parse.

We have the evidence and science to show that evolution and the big bang (which aren't that related, btw) are the most probable theories. From that I don't understand why you object that people use it as the new answer. Unless you posit that all answers to questions of human origin are mythic because the answers so far have largely been mythic, I don't see that you have a case.

Yes this is what I am saying.

It'd be a pleasure, but I really wish you would clearly, comprehensively, and concisely define how you are using the term myth, if it applies to actual texts (spoken or written) or if it's solely a product of interpretation, and what criteria are used to define it.

Again, is there another position besides scientific, religious, and unaware? Your OP said you were critical of the theory of evolution, which eliminated scientific and unaware as possibilities. What other category could you have fit into? If you had a legitimate concern or question you could have included it, that you did not placed you using both the position and the tactics of creationists.

There is none that we know of and that concerns me as well. This is why it strikes me as a creation myth. Its that this seems like the answer and people have latched on to it as the answer so that is what is getting the research grants. No other alternative is out there, but does that mean necessarily that there isn't one?

If you take a series of factual statements that refer to consecutive events and relate them in a chronological order, you have created a story. You have not, however, affected the fact or true value of those claims at all. Nor, in the absence of other factors, have you turned them into any common definition of myth. Again, I fail to grasp your issue.

Myth has nothing to do with the validity of the story. In fact for it to BE a myth as it is defined it must have been believed to be true by some people. So are you misspeaking here? Or saying it the wrong way around? Because this is where you and I disagree on the definiton of myth.

I'll be around.

Posting this in sections because it keeps timing out. I'll be back to fix it.

truethat

21st July 2008, 04:12 PM

I'm starting to lose faith in your sincerity. It's been explained umpteen times now that a general statement of skepticism about evolution, with no real question or argument to go with it, IS what sets people's Creationist Troll meters off. And yet you keep saying "I only made a general statement of skepticism and they got all hostile right away," like it proves we consider genuine skeptical thoughts about evolution to be heretical. What's up with that? Do you just not believe us or what?

Oh no I totally believe you. But I'm confused as to why people even bother debating with a Creationist. What's the point?

You see this is why it strikes me as a mythic response, I've stated it several times. The anger and hostility that comes with people on a message board, not in the courts trying to change a law but just Joe Blow on a message board saying they don't believe in Evolution.

To me, (perhaps I'm just not very emotional about this) I don't understand the anger. You KNOW they are a creationist so why the debate over who is right. Leave them to their ignorance.

That's my point. That the sleeves get rolled up and everyone's ready to rumble to fight for their story?

Do you see what I mean? None of the people who have been angry with me have explained WHY they are so ANGRY. Yes I get it, they have dealt with the Creationists in the past and think I am one. So why get into it and why get so worked up?

I don't understand this.

Foster Zygote

21st July 2008, 04:14 PM

A while back I watched part of a show on History about how the Greeks might have found bones of megafauna or fossils of dinosaurs and it's from these findings that their mythological creatures we developed. The difference between now and then is that we have a greater evidence to imagination (or analogy*) ratio today.
Adrienne Mayor has done some fascinating work in this area. Many ancient Greek temples actually contained fossils that were discarded by early archaeologists who could not see their significance.

We don't just have a handfull of bones and some idea of how they might fit together from which a diarama of Cretaceous terror conjured. We have thousands of finds and over a dozen different types of fossils from bones to footprints to egg clutches to coprolites. We actually can tell a lot about their behavior from this matrix of fossil evidences.
And a lot of engineering goes into modern reconstructions. A great deal about musculature, locomotion, balance, agility etc. can be extrapolated from bone structure.

And, actually, hyenas are very effective hunters. There are very few specialized scavengers (vultures being one of the few I can think of off hand) while most hunters will scavenge including lions, monitor lizards and eagles.
Quite true. In fact, hyenas can be more terrifying than lions. As Robert Bakker pointed out, vultures and buzzards can live by scavenging because they can cover vast amounts of territory with very little energy expenditure. Large land animals have to expend too much energy in the pursuit of carrion to make a living from scavenging alone.

Lithrael

21st July 2008, 04:37 PM

Oh no I totally believe you. But I'm confused as to why people even bother debating with a Creationist. What's the point?

Fun? Exercise? For the benefit of lurkers? To make sure one knows one's supporting points well? Because we can?

You see this is why it strikes me as a mythic response, I've stated it several times. The anger and hostility that comes with people on a message board, not in the courts trying to change a law but just Joe Blow on a message board saying they don't believe in Evolution.

To me, (perhaps I'm just not very emotional about this) I don't understand the anger. You KNOW they are a creationist so why the debate over who is right. Leave them to their ignorance.

I think you may be over-reading 'anger,' it strikes me more often as annoyance or 'yawn, here's another one...' Plus a lot of people around here just like to poke their fingers into things and practice their wit an' pithy tongues and such... I come here partly because I love being contrary like whoa, and partly to see if I can get my thoughts across coherently enough for an opponent to make sense of 'em. It's not all about defending the faith. ;)

quixotecoyote

21st July 2008, 05:34 PM

Yes this is what I am saying.

I don't think you can support that conception of myth. I ask you if any answer to the question of human origin is a myth and you say yes. That boggles me. That means that even were we to completely eliminate narrative and stay with strict science (whatever that means to you) a discussion of evolution would be myth.

There is none that we know of and that concerns me as well. This is why it strikes me as a creation myth. Its that this seems like the answer and people have latched on to it as the answer so that is what is getting the research grants.

Evolution strikes you as a creation myth because the main opposition to it is a creation myth? That's not sensible.

No other alternative is out there, but does that mean necessarily that there isn't one?

For the purposes of this conversation, yes, it does. I was speaking that there are currently three positions being held by significant numbers of people. One group says that life arose through natural processess that can be determined through evaluating evidence, another group says it happened by magic, a third group has not considered or is not aware of the issue.

While there may be a fringe group that thinks in a way I haven't mentioned, neither you nor I know what they are and so they can be ignored in a discussion of whether rejection of scientific thought implies magical thought.

Your belief that some equivalence must exsist between magical thought and scientific thought because they attempt to answer the same question is, as yet, unsupported. They do so in fundamentally different ways.

Scientific thought uses facts and evidence to support conclusions. It may use metaphor or rhetorical devices such as narrative to express itself, but those metaphors and rhetorical devices are used to express the meaning of the facts and evidence.

Magical thought also uses metaphor and rheorical construction of narratives, but in magical thought those metaphors and narratives are the meaning in themselves. This places magical thought squarely in the realm of myth as traditionally defined, with deep seated cultural metaphor and language creating meaning for the audience. Scientific thought does not have that element.

People are arguing the stories.If you take a series of factual statements that refer to consecutive events and relate them in a chronological order, you have created a story. You have not, however, affected the fact or true value of those claims at all. Nor, in the absence of other factors, have you turned them into any common definition of myth. Again, I fail to grasp your issue.
Myth has nothing to do with the validity of the story. In fact for it to BE a myth as it is defined it must have been believed to be true by some people. So are you misspeaking here? Or saying it the wrong way around? Because this is where you and I disagree on the definiton of myth.

My point was that facts listed chronologically can be stories. Stories can simply be a recitation of facts. Being stories does not make things myth. People arguing stories does not imply myth. One set of people could be using mythical arguments and the other set could simply be using a set of facts in a given arrangement. The end result that simply noting that there exist two stories does not mean there are two myths.

drkitten

21st July 2008, 06:28 PM

I took this as an accusation as being a "closet creationist"

And we add "inability to read for content" to the ever lengthening list of your scholastic failures.

arthwollipot

21st July 2008, 07:12 PM

And the personal attacks start. LOL. Actually I like curmudgeonly. So if you didn't mean it that way great.I apologise if I sounded insulting. I was a little drunk when I posted that.

I can't see how anyone would disagree with what I'm saying from an objective standpoint. Science should present SCIENCE period and end of story. If they are going to rail about how only Science should be in the classroom then they should heed their own advice and leave the story telling and "lets make it more interesting" out of it. I disagree with what you're saying from an objective standpoint. A little dollying up is absolutely necessary to teach science. It is my opinion that the "raw" science cannot be taught without a little storytelling. If we started teaching science the way you want us to, there would be very few science graduates, and those that remained would either be hopelessly obsessive-compulsive, or savants.

Oh no I totally believe you. But I'm confused as to why people even bother debating with a Creationist. What's the point?Since you're curious, read this: Why I Argue (http://www.arthwollipot.com/articles/sciencereligion/whyiargue/%22). I wrote it a few years ago as an answer to that exact question.

truethat

22nd July 2008, 03:37 AM

I don't think you can support that conception of myth. I ask you if any answer to the question of human origin is a myth and you say yes. That boggles me. That means that even were we to completely eliminate narrative and stay with strict science (whatever that means to you) a discussion of evolution would be myth.

Evolution strikes you as a creation myth because the main opposition to it is a creation myth? That's not sensible.

For the purposes of this conversation, yes, it does. I was speaking that there are currently three positions being held by significant numbers of people. One group says that life arose through natural processess that can be determined through evaluating evidence, another group says it happened by magic, a third group has not considered or is not aware of the issue.

While there may be a fringe group that thinks in a way I haven't mentioned, neither you nor I know what they are and so they can be ignored in a discussion of whether rejection of scientific thought implies magical thought.

Your belief that some equivalence must exsist between magical thought and scientific thought because they attempt to answer the same question is, as yet, unsupported. They do so in fundamentally different ways.

One of the reasons we keep going round in circles is that I keep saying I don't mean the SCIENCE of it but the public reaction to the science. You say that you understand the point I'm making (whether you agree with it is a different story) but then you go back again and tell me that I'm talking about science. Scientific though is by definition NOT MYTHIC so how can I be equivocating it with magical thought.

I'm not talking about SCIENTISTS or people who know what they are talking about. There seems to be this idea going around that people who believe in evolution are on one side of the fence. And people who are creationists are on the other. One side is smart and the other side is stupid. Etc. But the truth is there are probably a lot of stupid people who "believe" in evolution who take it just because someone told them it was true. Also because they like the story more than the science. That's why these non scientific narratives are so popular. People are responding to the myth, not the science.

Scientific thought uses facts and evidence to support conclusions. It may use metaphor or rhetorical devices such as narrative to express itself, but those metaphors and rhetorical devices are used to express the meaning of the facts and evidence.

Magical thought also uses metaphor and rheorical construction of narratives, but in magical thought those metaphors and narratives are the meaning in themselves. This places magical thought squarely in the realm of myth as traditionally defined, with deep seated cultural metaphor and language creating meaning for the audience. Scientific thought does not have that element.

My point was that facts listed chronologically can be stories. Stories can simply be a recitation of facts. Being stories does not make things myth. People arguing stories does not imply myth. One set of people could be using mythical arguments and the other set could simply be using a set of facts in a given arrangement. The end result that simply noting that there exist two stories does not mean there are two myths.

I KNOW being stories doesn't make things myth. Its the response of the public that makes it myth is it not? Just take legend. What makes Elvis a legend? Its not that Elvis really did anything all that spectacular, its the public's response to Elvis. That's why I used Clay Aiken earlier. There's no real reason why Aiken should be as popular as he is.

truethat

22nd July 2008, 03:54 AM

And we add "inability to read for content" to the ever lengthening list of your scholastic failures.

I couldn't have paid someone to come on and post the way you have to so prove my point.

You made a statement a few posts up that presumably the reason its being stated that T rex's eat their young or are fiercely protective mothers is that, as per scientific method, there is evidence that bears this out. You also suggested that in a snap jiffy you'd be able to produce such evidence.

I checked it out and my skepiticism seems to have some merit. There is no evidence that points to this, in spite of your statements that there is, and the opinion that dinosaurs behave in such a way seems to be linked to the idea that Dino's are ancestors of birds and as such will have bird like behavior. Isn't this the same kind of error we made before when we stated that dinos were like lizards?

Your anger and suggestion that I have no right to question science is very similar to ye old "You have no right to question the church as it is the final authority"

Skeptic Ginger

22nd July 2008, 03:58 AM

I'm sure in 12 pages what I have to add is going to be redundant, but it still seems to be something that needs to be repeated. Arguments suggesting evolution theory is still uncertain are based on decades old science. We are waaaaay past that with the contribution that genetic science has made to the field. A decade or so ago there was a laboratory procedure breakthrough that made DNA research cheaper and easier. At the same time a new field arose called bioinformatics which is essentially the field of writing computer programs to analyze massive amounts of biological data such as the 3 billion nucleic acid base pairs that make up the human genome. Progress in the field of evolutionary biology has since virtually exploded on a logarithmic scale.

I understand why people like yourself, truethat, don't realize there is no longer any question about the correctness of evolution theory. But it is time to move on. There are a lot of specific details about evolution theory that scientists still debate. But no one in biology except the handful of scientists in denial like Michael Behe are still debating the correctness of the theory.

A lot of progress has also been made searching for the specific mechanism(s) of abiogenesis. But the fact that abiogenesis occurred is not doubted by any scientist whose objectivity is not affected by god beliefs.

It's not that people are simply attacking evolution doubters because the people intolerant of the deniers or doubters are blinded by some overzealous bias. It's that the evidence for evolution theory is so totally and completely overwhelming, it is like hearing people seriously trying to argue we really aren't sure the Earth is not flat.

D'rok

22nd July 2008, 07:52 AM

This'll drive truehat crazy:

http://gizmodo.com/5027378/real-dinosaur-on-the-loose-in-a-museum-makes-learning-fun-extremely-dangerous

Lithrael

22nd July 2008, 09:17 AM

This'll drive truehat crazy:

http://gizmodo.com/5027378/real-dinosaur-on-the-loose-in-a-museum-makes-learning-fun-extremely-dangerous

THAT IS DOUBLE-PLUS AWESOME

(...)the opinion that dinosaurs behave in such a way seems to be linked to the idea that Dino's are ancestors of birds and as such will have bird like behavior. Isn't this the same kind of error we made before when we stated that dinos were like lizards?

No, not really. You don't seem to understand modern paleontology is vastly different to what it was in its infancy. The first dino reconstructors had nothing but disarticulated and incomplete skeletons, their guesses and the clumsiest of inferences. The modern ones have a huge framework of information and complex bases of inference to work from.

We're still pulling the colors out of our butt, sure. Would you prefer we didn't use color? Or perhaps a disclaimer under every illustration - "artist's interpretation?" As if it could be anything else? Do you think the public thinks we know the right colors because we find dinos in blocks of ice? Is that the myth you keep talking about? The public assuming we know this stuff from our cloned Jurassic Park dinos or something? I fail to be very worried about that, just as you fail to be worried about Creationists.

Jimbo07

22nd July 2008, 09:35 AM

We're still pulling the colors out of our butt, sure. Would you prefer we didn't use color? Or perhaps a disclaimer under every illustration - "artist's interpretation?" As if it could be anything else? Do you think the public thinks we know the right colors because we find dinos in blocks of ice? Is that the myth you keep talking about? The public assuming we know this stuff from our cloned Jurassic Park dinos or something? I fail to be very worried about that, just as you fail to be worried about Creationists.

Interestingly, paintings of newly discovered planets, which are released with press articles are usually captioned with, "Artist's Conception of..."

Agno

22nd July 2008, 09:37 AM

I think one thing that a lot of people fail to understand is that Darwin didn't base his ideas on fossil evidence. He based them on the animals and plants he observed on his trip. Anyone who takes the time to study the natural world in a logical and objective way will come to the same conclusions. No fossil evidence is necessary, although it is very helpful.

My favorite example is the lizard family called skinks. Some species are long with short legs, some are very long with very short legs, some are really long with only short stubs where legs used to be and some have lost their legs altogether. Some members of the skink family of lizards have taken a similar evolutionary path to snakes. Some snakes (pythons) still have vestigial hind legs, just stubs really. Snakes have hips, the only purpose of hips is to attach legs.

Good photographic examples can be found here:

wherelightmeetsdark.com/images/pagemaster/three_toed_skink_5.jpg

here:

kingsnake.com/westindian/diploglossusplei3.JPG

and here:

wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Chalcides_chalcides.jpg/250px-Chalcides_chalcides.jpg

(note, it wouldn't let me post a link because I haven't made 15 posts yet. Put 3 w's in front of the first two links and "upload" in front of the last one.)
There are plenty of other examples.

truethat

22nd July 2008, 10:12 AM

I think I thought of a better way of explaining what I mean.

Take the SHARK. Now many people have a primal fear associated with sharks. This is largely because while the public is fascinated by sharks, popular portrayals of sharks have focused a lot on the scarier concepts. Man Eater, Jaws, etc you get the point.

What I was would equivocate to the primal fear, is the "question of origins" in that these are both part of the mythic language in human beings.

Now people could make the same argument. What's the harm, if it makes it more interesting to the public who cares if we gussy up the shark to show it as this KING OF THE OCEAN.

Others may disagree with me but I think it does cause harm. From a scientific perspective most people have a very distorted idea what sharks are all about. From a moral perspective, when we patronize the public but playing on those primal fears we have things like those cage diving boats that chum the waters to get sharks to come inland so they can make money off of it and in the interim, sharks are harmed if they go further inland. etc etc etc.

What I see is that here is an example where science has contributed to the myth that plays to the primal fear, so much that the actual science got lost in the process. We are fascinated by sharks and there are many frustrated marine biologists out there that are annoyed at the distorted and uneducated ideas people have about sharks.

I'll stop here to see if this makes more sense. THe science of Shark studies is probably pretty damned good, but what the public has responded to which has caused a "lets give them more of what they like" response from science and also pop science has created a total LIE for the most part when it comes to sharks.

Most people know very little about the truth of sharks. They prefer the mythic narrative.

Lithrael

22nd July 2008, 10:45 AM

The science of Shark studies is probably pretty damned good, but what the public has responded to which has caused a "lets give them more of what they like" response from science and also pop science has created a total LIE for the most part when it comes to sharks.

The heck? What total lie? Care to back this up in any way at all? Pop CULTURE has painted sharks as monsters, but I've never seen pop science do it.

And what does the 'shark tourism is bad for sharks' thing have to do with the public perception of science? I'd say poor eco-management is a symptom of people not caring very much about their impact - bad zoos are another symptom of this and I wouldn't call them a result of bad public perception of science either, rather of poor management + profit motive.

ETA: re: Agno's post about shark attack shows: Yeah, I hate those "Animal Attack!!!" type shows too - But I wouldn't call those pop science. They're shock journalism.

Agno

22nd July 2008, 10:52 AM

I have seen (so-called) scientific documentaries on sharks where they trot out people with hideous scars and have them tell about being attacked by sharks. And they usually give examples of fatalities as well. So I would agree that in some documentaries, they do tend to promote the more scarier aspects of sharks. It may be all in the name of scientific accuracy, to portray both the good and the bad, but it still comes across as making them scarier.

truethat

22nd July 2008, 03:27 PM

Interestingly, paintings of newly discovered planets, which are released with press articles are usually captioned with, "Artist's Conception of..."

I've noticed it as well. Which is why its odd to me that people make such a huge deal out of evolutionists doing the same thing.

The heck? What total lie? Care to back this up in any way at all? Pop CULTURE has painted sharks as monsters, but I've never seen pop science do it.

And what does the 'shark tourism is bad for sharks' thing have to do with the public perception of science? I'd say poor eco-management is a symptom of people not caring very much about their impact - bad zoos are another symptom of this and I wouldn't call them a result of bad public perception of science either, rather of poor management + profit motive.

ETA: re: Agno's post about shark attack shows: Yeah, I hate those "Animal Attack!!!" type shows too - But I wouldn't call those pop science. They're shock journalism.

I don't understand the point of your reply. Honestly at this point it seems like you are making excuses just to not have to agree with me. Science most certainly DOES participate in this kind of thing

I mean I see over and over again that "science has nothing to do with this" "science wouldn't make these statements if they weren't true" etc etc etc

And frankly that's the whole point of the damn thread. Science DOES patronize the mythical elements that are the biggest draw to people

So although its not really properly educating the public about sharks to push for SHARK attack specials, Science as it is presented to the public DOES DO IT>
http://www.amazon.com/NOVA-Shark-Attack-Nova/dp/B000EMG9AO/ref=pd_sim_d_4

http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Shark-Bite-J-V-Martin/dp/B0009JQN6C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1216762001&sr=1-1

At the same time I want to be clear that I'm not condemning the science community for this tact, only for not speaking up more when they see it happen. But what tag word should we use to say the educators who like the science educator on this thread drkitten who apparently has no problem saying "Presumably there are fossils that prove this" and then don't bother backing up their statement with any sort of evidence.

I mean who is responsible for the way the public is educated about this stuff? Partly the public but if the educators treat everyone with an ounce of skepticism as a raving creationists, then what does that say about the educators? And the media? And the pop science?

GeeMack

22nd July 2008, 04:03 PM

I think I thought of a better way of explaining what I mean.

Doesn't look like you have. You're still whining about a problem that you can't seem to actually identify. You're still reluctant (or maybe just unable) to articulate any prospective solutions your perceived problem. You still haven't offered any alternative approaches to explaining scientific things to the masses.

Take the SHARK. Now many people have a primal fear associated with sharks. This is largely because while the public is fascinated by sharks, popular portrayals of sharks have focused a lot on the scarier concepts. Man Eater, Jaws, etc you get the point.

What I was would equivocate to the primal fear, is the "question of origins" in that these are both part of the mythic language in human beings.

Now people could make the same argument. What's the harm, if it makes it more interesting to the public who cares if we gussy up the shark to show it as this KING OF THE OCEAN.

Others may disagree with me but I think it does cause harm. From a scientific perspective most people have a very distorted idea what sharks are all about. From a moral perspective, when we patronize the public but playing on those primal fears we have things like those cage diving boats that chum the waters to get sharks to come inland so they can make money off of it and in the interim, sharks are harmed if they go further inland. etc etc etc.

What I see is that here is an example where science has contributed to the myth that plays to the primal fear, so much that the actual science got lost in the process. We are fascinated by sharks and there are many frustrated marine biologists out there that are annoyed at the distorted and uneducated ideas people have about sharks.

I'll stop here to see if this makes more sense. THe science of Shark studies is probably pretty damned good, but what the public has responded to which has caused a "lets give them more of what they like" response from science and also pop science has created a total LIE for the most part when it comes to sharks.

Most people know very little about the truth of sharks. They prefer the mythic narrative.

Who are you going to hire to perform the duties of "science police"? What sort of penalty should be levied when someone forgets to preface a scientific comment with, "We don't really know for sure, but to the best of our knowledge so far we think there's a good possibility that such-n-such..."? How would you draw the dividing line between dry, raw science and a simple explanation that actually helps educate some but omits the details and/or disclaimers? Your continuing to claim that there's a problem with the current method of teaching/explaining science isn't getting anyone any closer to a solution. Can you think of any? Or are you maybe just complaining for the sake of complaining?

Lithrael

22nd July 2008, 04:15 PM

I don't understand the point of your reply. Honestly at this point it seems like you are making excuses just to not have to agree with me. Science most certainly DOES participate in this kind of thing (...) And frankly that's the whole point of the damn thread. Science DOES patronize the mythical elements that are the biggest draw to people

So although its not really properly educating the public about sharks to push for SHARK attack specials, Science as it is presented to the public DOES DO IT>
http://www.amazon.com/NOVA-Shark-Attack-Nova/dp/B000EMG9AO/ref=pd_sim_d_4

http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Shark-Bite-J-V-Martin/dp/B0009JQN6C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1216762001&sr=1-1

Well I did say I love being contrary. ;)

You claimed pop science has created a total LIE about sharks. I agree it's stupid to spend a whole show on shark bites, but these shows are not packs of lies. Sharks don't attack often but when they do they bite the hell out of things. And shark shows pretty much always mention that sharks attack very rarely. So what exactly are you talking about?

I mean who is responsible for the way the public is educated about this stuff? Partly the public but if the educators treat everyone with an ounce of skepticism as a raving creationists, then what does that say about the educators? And the media? And the pop science?

I don't understand what you mean. For one thing, the educators DO NOT treat everyone with an ounce of skepticism as a raving creationist. Skep pointed out that the evidence for evolution is so strong now that there are only 3 possible camps - understanding, ignorance, or denial. Educators are happy to work with genuine ignorance and will get right down to the business of education.

Entertainment is not responsible for educating people. Stupid, sensationalist shows like the shark bite show you linked, are pushed by the owners of the networks who want money. I don't see any avenues for annoyed scientists to find a wide audience for their complaints about sensationalism. It's going to be the letters page in Discovery Magazine.

It's the endless ghost and historical-conspiracy and supernatural shows we're getting on the pop science networks these days that piss ME off. And nobody listens to me either. ;)

Skeptic Ginger

22nd July 2008, 09:36 PM

truethat

23rd July 2008, 02:35 AM

Doesn't look like you have. You're still whining about a problem that you can't seem to actually identify. You're still reluctant (or maybe just unable) to articulate any prospective solutions your perceived problem. You still haven't offered any alternative approaches to explaining scientific things to the masses.

The title of this thread, that you and some others seem to over look, is "QUESTION about Evolutionary Narrative" In other words although you are going to act like I'm brandishing my opinion like a fact, I'm actually trying to sort out what I mean.

I've said this several times. And while I can concede that yes past conversations people have had with creationists have made them hardened and angry, I'm kinda over the whole "Gotta insult the person who is questioning science" because its completely silly. We're just hashing things about.

If you are going to try to attack me for something please make it about something I am actually doing. I'm trying to figure out what I mean and I appreciate everyone's efforts in that.

Additionally, when I ignore or dismiss something its not because I don't think its important but because I'd like to be able to formulate this idea in the future in a much clearer way. So right now I'm focusing on that and trying to keep it on track. If this comes across as insulting you then I apologize, but its not what I intend.

Who are you going to hire to perform the duties of "science police"? What sort of penalty should be levied when someone forgets to preface a scientific comment with, "We don't really know for sure, but to the best of our knowledge so far we think there's a good possibility that such-n-such..."? How would you draw the dividing line between dry, raw science and a simple explanation that actually helps educate some but omits the details and/or disclaimers? Your continuing to claim that there's a problem with the current method of teaching/explaining science isn't getting anyone any closer to a solution. Can you think of any? Or are you maybe just complaining for the sake of complaining?

I think that's why I started discussing use of Narrative. In other words in certain places we should only use exposition and not gussy it up. Like text books and things presented by a scientific authority. I consider Nova for example a scientific authority to the general public, but say "Discovery Channel" as not. So I would just be careful to distinugish when it is being presented as science and when its just sort of a creative exploration of the science we have? Does that make sense?

Hope the post is clear

truethat

23rd July 2008, 02:41 AM

This posts seems like you are confusing TV infotainment with actual science presentations. I think more than a few skeptics are interesting in impacting the crap on TV and in the mainstream media.

No I'm not, I understand as I said before that you haven't read the whole thread but you keep coming in and bringing up things I've addressed before.

I understand and even mentioned in these posts that the science behind Shark research is extraordinary. I also concede that its more interesting to people to gussy it up or make it a story.

But when it is presented to the public in a way that plays to the mythic response to primal fear, it totally distorts the science. When entertainment wants to do that, there's a part of our minds that understands that its just entertainment or story.

In other words you'd not likely find someone going off about the science of sharks and then saying "Well in Jaws they said...." or "I saw in Jaws the way the shark...etc etc " people know that its a movie.

Likewise you won't see too many people quoting Jurassic Park in an effort to discuss the science in Dinosaurs. People would shut that down pretty quickly even if the information was pretty true, because its just a movie. Its not made to be taken as a science representation.

(Actually I want to change that, I do often see people mentioning Jurassic Park, and its because Stephen Spielberg went to dino experts for creating the story, however I do know that science howled about the distortions in the movie, but some people DO in their minds reference Jurassic Park for how they understand Dinos, and most certainly do people reference Walking with the Dinosaurs because it was presented to the public as a science documentary.)

However I think some "science" specials confuse the public, to the point that you do hear people saying "I saw this science special on the television and they were talking about sharks" and perhaps the science community might say "Oh that's just a show" but others take it like its actual science.

truethat

23rd July 2008, 03:04 AM

Well I did say I love being contrary. ;)

You claimed pop science has created a total LIE about sharks. I agree it's stupid to spend a whole show on shark bites, but these shows are not packs of lies. Sharks don't attack often but when they do they bite the hell out of things. And shark shows pretty much always mention that sharks attack very rarely. So what exactly are you talking about?

Good catch. That's not what I meant though. What I meant in creating a total lie is the "MYTHIC" (not myths as in lies but as in mythic) Shark.

In other words there's a total lie out there that sharks are sort of man's natural enemy in the water. Its a sort of pushing of kinship between man and shark. Its this idea that sharks "attack man" when its really sharks attack things that cross their path. Its not man's enemy in the water any more than a lion fish or jelly fish or sting ray is. What I consider LIE big caps is the MYTHIC LIE that plays to the primal fears in man. Cue eerie music and camera shots from the sharks vantage point that are completely inaccurate.

I wish I was more clear in this because this is exactly an example of what I mean by myth. Its difficult because I'm using LIE and MYTH in the same sentence and because so many people think myth means a "not true story" they think I'm saying the Shark MYTH is the Shark LIE which is why I am distinguishing it.

Shark MYTH to me means "Shark Story that plays to the primal fears in man"

I hope if someone gets what I mean they can state it back to me. To me its crystal clear, I don't know why I'm thinking its so clear and no one else gets it. But that's part of why it annoys me to have to wade through the creationist crap just to even start having the actual discussion. I think it taints how people see me through the rest of the thread.

I don't understand what you mean. For one thing, the educators DO NOT treat everyone with an ounce of skepticism as a raving creationist. Skep pointed out that the evidence for evolution is so strong now that there are only 3 possible camps - understanding, ignorance, or denial. Educators are happy to work with genuine ignorance and will get right down to the business of education.

That's three camps. I'm glad you pointed that out. (Edit, notice before when I said that it bothered me that its being turned into a two camp argument Quix said there was only two camps in reality, but I disagree with that) Because I think that people tend to refuse the second category or shove it into denial. There's also another camp though I think I fall into. That is general skepticism, Not that you deny and not that you are completely ignorant. But rather that when you see someone making an unscientific statement, like, "Presumably there are fossils that prove this" and you notice there's not really any evidence to back this up, so you pause. When you see this happening a lot it causes you to be skeptical about what is being presented to the public.

And it puts you in an awkward position. Obviously you don't know enough about the science of it to actually take a stand. But critical thinking allows you to understand that this is being passed off as a scientific statement when its not. For me, its frustrating because I would like to be able to trust what I hear coming from science educators and the realm of science is scientific and not "interesting story idea" that really bugs me.

Entertainment is not responsible for educating people. Stupid, sensationalist shows like the shark bite show you linked, are pushed by the owners of the networks who want money. I don't see any avenues for annoyed scientists to find a wide audience for their complaints about sensationalism. It's going to be the letters page in Discovery Magazine.

Well when there are scientists backing up these shows then its clear that there is a venue for this. I know that Science can't police people, but at the same time when scientists are doing this in the name of science, I would wonder why Scientists don't flip out about it more loudly.

But as you see with this point, that's why its not really SCIENCE that's the problem in complaining. Its that people don't want to hear it. They like the the mythical elements of science and so that's what they respond to. And they aren't likely to listen to those disclaimers anyway. This is why I think the direction it is going in is dangerous. Its going to blur the line between science and entertainment or narrative story so much that science is going to be left in the dust.

It's the endless ghost and historical-conspiracy and supernatural shows we're getting on the pop science networks these days that piss ME off. And nobody listens to me either. ;)

So maybe my issue isn't with Evolution and Origins and Big Bang but in general the way science is getting mixed in with infotainment and the bottom line is money trumps education every time.

That's annoying.

:whistling

truethat

23rd July 2008, 03:21 AM

I just thought of something else I'd like to point out. Why would "Walking with the Dinosaurs" model itself after a documentary in the first place? Many people on this site have stated that the typical ways that science is presented bores the public. But documentaries are pretty boring. So if there is such a resistance to exposition why would they use this format and why would it be so popular?

I think its because people like to feel as though they are being educated by science. Science to many is a mystery, and the idea that something is given to you in a way that you can make sense of, its wonderful.

What they did in making this film tapped into that desire in people but presented complete story. So that's in a sense like they used the documentary format to give credibility to their film and authority to it, but then made an MOVIE just like Jurassic Park.

Even if people know its just a movie, there's a sense that its a true story.

truethat

23rd July 2008, 03:25 AM

I apologise if I sounded insulting. I was a little drunk when I posted that.

I disagree with what you're saying from an objective standpoint. A little dollying up is absolutely necessary to teach science. It is my opinion that the "raw" science cannot be taught without a little storytelling. If we started teaching science the way you want us to, there would be very few science graduates, and those that remained would either be hopelessly obsessive-compulsive, or savants.

Since you're curious, read this: Why I Argue (http://www.arthwollipot.com/articles/sciencereligion/whyiargue/%22). I wrote it a few years ago as an answer to that exact question.

I went to there arth and I got this

Our apologies... The item you requested does not exist on this server or cannot be served.

Please double check the web address or use the search function on this page to find what you are looking for.

If you know you have the correct web address but are encountering an error, please send a mail to the administrator of this site.

postmaster@localhost
Thank you.

404 Not Found

Maybe you could paste it here?

Lithrael

23rd July 2008, 09:48 AM

There's also another camp though I think I fall into. That is general skepticism, Not that you deny and not that you are completely ignorant. But rather that when you see someone making an unscientific statement, like, "Presumably there are fossils that prove this" and you notice there's not really any evidence to back this up (...) it puts you in an awkward position. Obviously you don't know enough about the science of it to actually take a stand. But critical thinking allows you to understand that this is being passed off as a scientific statement when its not.

I do understand your frustration. You're conflating a couple different levels of things here though. The person making an unscientific statement was a layperson who had not researched that particular issue. There is no evidence to back up the layperson's statement. There is a fairly solid groundwork for the actual 'scientific statement' you guys were talking about, the one presented in the show. I understand why you have problems with the presentation of 'merely' inferred ideas in paleontology, but I simply do not.

I think the other trouble you're running into here is that what you really seem to be talking about, on that side of the issue, is not skepticism but rather a desire for fact-checking - which is totally fine! But it's hard to respect someone who wants all the facts checked for them but wants a nebulous someone else to do it. If you're passionate about it why not learn it yourself? You've conceded already that the 'dry' science will tell you exactly what it bases its theories on.

Why would "Walking with the Dinosaurs" model itself after a documentary in the first place? Many people on this site have stated that the typical ways that science is presented bores the public. But documentaries are pretty boring. So if there is such a resistance to exposition why would they use this format and why would it be so popular?

Facepalm. Documentaries are pretty boring, huh. Please don't tell the BBC Natural History Unit. Lots of us really love the good old fashioned wildlife documentary. The idea of doing a dino show that way was a great one. I didn't think it was boring at all - just like I don't find the Life series boring.

Oh, and Arthur's link just has a trailing " stuck on it. Here it is without the typo:

http://www.arthwollipot.com/articles/sciencereligion/whyiargue

truethat

23rd July 2008, 10:05 AM

I think I could have written the same post as atho with the words "Creationism" replaced with "Scientific mythologies" in place.

I understand that its up to me to find out the real information as I have stated earlier. But it seems to me for people who are so up in arms that "THAT"S NOT SCIENCE" which is the argument thrown at the creationists, there's a whole lot of hypocrisy for science is given a free pass.

Look at the excuses made in this thread alone

"Presumably they must have the evidence or they wouldn't have stated it"

"Well that's just popular CULTURE, science isn't doing that!"

"Who are you to question science"

"If science gives you the wrong information, go figure it out yourself if it bothers you so much"

Um, it seems to me that everyone is willing to exempt science from following its own rules and living up to its own standards.

Like I've stated before, WHY? I don't understand why?

truethat

23rd July 2008, 10:13 AM

I do understand your frustration. You're conflating a couple different levels of things here though. The person making an unscientific statement was a layperson who had not researched that particular issue. There is no evidence to back up the layperson's statement. There is a fairly solid groundwork for the actual 'scientific statement' you guys were talking about, the one presented in the show. I understand why you have problems with the presentation of 'merely' inferred ideas in paleontology, but I simply do not.

I think the other trouble you're running into here is that what you really seem to be talking about, on that side of the issue, is not skepticism but rather a desire for fact-checking - which is totally fine! But it's hard to respect someone who wants all the facts checked for them but wants a nebulous someone else to do it. If you're passionate about it why not learn it yourself? You've conceded already that the 'dry' science will tell you exactly what it bases its theories on.

I think its a fair expectation to expect science to give us the truth about what they know. And frankly like I pointed out with the mysteriously quiet Dr Kitten once faced with the fact that the evidence they thought was out there is not, when you question things, and you get answers from science educators and then you find out that basically half the science educators out there are no different than a creationist in the way they accept on faith the authority of science and the things they hear, and get mad at you for questioning it, well gee then what do I do? And if I'm catching on to things here and there, what else do I not even realize is slipping by?

I think Science should focus on teaching science and leave mythology and story telling to the other disciplines, because it only confuses the issue.

Facepalm. Documentaries are pretty boring, huh. Please don't tell the BBC Natural History Unit. Lots of us really love the good old fashioned wildlife documentary. The idea of doing a dino show that way was a great one. I didn't think it was boring at all - just like I don't find the Life series boring.

I don't think you are actually answering the question I asked. I didn't ask if people thought it was boring, I asked why you thought the series decided to use a documentary format, which is usually exposition style, if only narrative will work?

As you just pointed out many people find documentaries interesting. So much for the argument that exposition is boring and dry and ONLY stories and narrative will keep people's interest.

My point is that the show was deliberately misleading by presenting it in a scientific format.

Oh, and Arthur's link just has a trailing " stuck on it. Here it is without the typo:

http://www.arthwollipot.com/articles/sciencereligion/whyiargue

thanks for fixing the link

Lithrael

23rd July 2008, 11:19 AM

I don't think you are actually answering the question I asked. I didn't ask if people thought it was boring, I asked why you thought the series decided to use a documentary format, which is usually exposition style, if only narrative will work?

Because many of the BBC NHU's most popular programs - in the UK - are wildlife documentaries. They know how to do them well. Because people love dinosaur shows and this was a new and engaging approach to making a dinosaur show. So they were combining their strength with a subject that the public always responds to.

As you just pointed out many people find documentaries interesting. So much for the argument that exposition is boring and dry and ONLY stories and narrative will keep people's interest.

When's the last time you watched a good wildlife documentary? The popular ones are full of narrative and the mythical language that gets up your nose so badly.

Look at the excuses made in this thread alone

"Presumably they must have the evidence or they wouldn't have stated it"

Which is generally true... But I can definitely see why you see this trust in pop science as a bad attitude, since scientists do not like to lie, but producers want everything to be more exciting. We just don't see where that gap is very significant, in good programming.

"Well that's just popular CULTURE, science isn't doing that!"

Some problems come out of economics that we just don't know how to work around. One is that crap TV and pop science TV will mimic one another a little. Are you going to blame pop science for Wildboyz?

"Who are you to question science"

Well, who ARE you to question it? To seriously question it you DO have to understand it first. Do you go up to an architect and say 'How do you know that wall should really go there?' Do you expect him to take you seriously? When an architect makes a mistake he expects his peers at the office to notice and correct it - not the guy on the sidewalk.

"If science gives you the wrong information, go figure it out yourself if it bothers you so much"

No one has said that. It's "If you think science gives you the wrong information, go figure it out yourself if it bothers you so much." We say that because we follow a little pop science and we don't usually find horrible misinformation in it. AND because we like the idea of people being inspired to go learn something for themselves, even if the inspiration is 'getting pissed off'.

Nobody here really applauds pop science for simplfying some concepts for the public, but what's the alternative? Don't mention it? The material that's harder for the public to digest goes undigested by the public - not least because they never see it, because popular media does not print material the populace is not interested in.

truethat

23rd July 2008, 02:35 PM

Because many of the BtoBC NHU's most popular programs - in the UK - are wildlife documentaries. They know how to do them well. Because people love dinosaur shows and this was a new and engaging approach to making a dinosaur show. So they were combining their strength with a subject that the public always responds to.

When's the last time you watched a good wildlife documentary? The popular ones are full of narrative and the mythical language that gets up your nose so badly.

Which is generally true... But I can definitely see why you see this trust in pop science as a bad attitude, since scientists do not like to lie, but producers want everything to be more exciting. We just don't see where that gap is very significant, in good programming.

Some problems come out of economics that we just don't know how to work around. One is that crap TV and pop science TV will mimic one another a little. Are you going to blame pop science for Wildboyz?

Well, who ARE you to question it? To seriously question it you DO have to understand it first. Do you go up to an architect and say 'How do you know that wall should really go there?' Do you expect him to take you seriously? When an architect makes a mistake he expects his peers at the office to notice and correct it - not the guy on the sidewalk.

No one has said that. It's "If you think science gives you the wrong information, go figure it out yourself if it bothers you so much." We say that because we follow a little pop science and we don't usually find horrible misinformation in it. AND because we like the idea of people being inspired to go learn something for themselves, even if the inspiration is 'getting pissed off'.

Nobody here really applauds pop science for simplfying some concepts for the public, but what's the alternative? Don't mention it? The material that's harder for the public to digest goes undigested by the public - not least because they never see it, because popular media does not print material the populace is not interested in.

I'm going to just push aside all the other stuff you wrote which I see as just continual justification for bad science education directed at the public, because I agree to disagree as to whether this is that significant.

I do want to get to the point you made that I bolded. I think this is a EUREKA moment. You just hit the nail on the head.

I've had that argument leveled at me numerous times. Scientists are too busy being scientists to concern themselves with the way the general public is being educated.

Except what's the difference between your example and science? Well for one thing Architects aren't walking around complaining about the lack of architectual awareness in the world and trumping up some disastrous world that will exist if people aren't properly educated about architecture.

Additionally we aren't being told that children MUST be educated in school about specific aspects of architectual studies because to fail to do this will lead to the ruin of mankind of some sort or another.

Rather, Architects, and there are many, spend their time doing architecture. And if you want to be an architect, well then you focus on the studies that will get you there.

Architecture is not rammed down everyone's throat with this fatalistic attitude that you MUST learn this, and then when you question it you are told "Who are you to question architecture, do you really expect us to take time out of our busy day to educate you on this? Go look it up yourself."

I don't then go to the architecture section of the library or look things up online to find out that they are often misinformation or stories aimed at entertaining the public because the public is too stupid to take it otherwise.

So I think that's the key. Architecture is not science. Neither is Math or English or other such things. ONLY science seems compelled to save us from our ignorance regarding science and feels so passionately about it that they feel they must aim it at kids at a young age.

I'm an English major as a BA and Masters in Liberal Arts with a focus in mythology and I've never seen anyone who questions things in these fields be scoffed at for being stupid. That in and of itself goes against what education is all about.

My question was not a stupid "Sheesh anyone should know that" type question. It questioned two different parenting behaviors attributed to the T rex and looking it up is not as easy as you might thing it is. Especially since the last source that gave it to me came from a scientific background. So who do I go to? Must I question every single source? Then what's the point of putting it out there as the "answer"

Lithrael

23rd July 2008, 03:37 PM

Well, who ARE you to question (science)? To seriously question it you DO have to understand it first. Do you go up to an architect and say 'How do you know that wall should really go there?' Do you expect him to take you seriously? When an architect makes a mistake he expects his peers at the office to notice and correct it - not the guy on the sidewalk.

I've had that argument leveled at me numerous times. Scientists are too busy being scientists to concern themselves with the way the general public is being educated.

Except what's the difference between your example and science? Well for one thing Architects aren't walking around complaining about the lack of architectural awareness in the world and trumping up some disastrous world that will exist if people aren't properly educated about architecture.

Yes they are. American architects are frustrated and angry at the way the importance of uplifting public spaces has vanished in most modern American architecture and city planning. They lament the way this contributes to urban decay and are saddened by the grey block future the poor kids will grow up with. But they have no audience because nobody much consciously cares about architecture, certainly not more than they care about money, and very few people are ever in a position to influence what gets built. But this lack of awareness is a large scale social problem, one that's nigh-impossible to get anyone to care about.

Additionally we aren't being told that children MUST be educated in school about specific aspects of architectural studies because to fail to do this will lead to the ruin of mankind of some sort or another.

Rather, Architects, and there are many, spend their time doing architecture. And if you want to be an architect, well then you focus on the studies that will get you there.

Architecture is not rammed down everyone's throat with this fatalistic attitude that you MUST learn this, and then when you question it you are told "Who are you to question architecture, do you really expect us to take time out of our busy day to educate you on this? Go look it up yourself."

I don't then go to the architecture section of the library or look things up online to find out that they are often misinformation or stories aimed at entertaining the public because the public is too stupid to take it otherwise.

So I think that's the key. Architecture is not science. Neither is Math or English or other such things. ONLY science seems compelled to save us from our ignorance regarding science and feels so passionately about it that they feel they must aim it at kids at a young age.

You might notice there are not many popular shows about architecture, math or english. ONLY science has stuff cool enough to be be packaged commercially. Ok, literature and history get dramatized too - and they suffer from the same kinds of problems as pop science.

I'm an English major as a BA and Masters in Liberal Arts with a focus in mythology and I've never seen anyone who questions things in these fields be scoffed at for being stupid. That in and of itself goes against what education is all about.

You might also notice there is a lot more wiggle room in mythology than in science - and a lot fewer people pushing any sort of agenda against it.

My question was not a stupid "Sheesh anyone should know that" type question. It questioned two different parenting behaviors attributed to the T rex and looking it up is not as easy as you might thing it is. Especially since the last source that gave it to me came from a scientific background. So who do I go to? Must I question every single source? Then what's the point of putting it out there as the "answer"

It was not a stupid question - and YES it is difficult to just look up the answer to one specific question in paleontology like that. Do you think it's easier for us on the board? What I mean when I say 'if you care, learn about it,' is not 'go look that up.' I mean 'go study the techniques of modern dino paleontology.' Because that's what you have to do to really understand it. At least, until someone makes a really kick ass scientific dinosaur wiki. It's days in the library, not five minutes on the internet.

If you DID question every single source you'd start to get a picture of how solid the science behind this stuff really is - and you'd probably feel a lot better. You're an English major, didn't they cover how to evaluate the reliability of your sources? Or is that just journalism?

The point of putting it out there was to round out a complete story, within reason. At this point I think we're just disagreeing on what's reasonable.

But this does look like a much more concise version of what you meant. I mostly see where you're coming from. I think this is going to be an agree-to-disagree thing.

Foster Zygote

23rd July 2008, 08:17 PM

These same answers are the reason that people are turning Origins and Big Bang into Creation myths.
What people are doing this? Can you offer any specific examples?

truethat

24th July 2008, 10:16 AM

Litheral if you are honestly going to compare "architecture" to "science" in how its handled in public school education of kids in elementary, middle and high school then I guess we're done having this discussion because that's total malarkey.

Its also not the first time in the thread you've made a bogus statement just to "win the point" rather that moving the conversation forward.

But I agree that we're probably at the end of the conversation here and see your point that it just doesn't matter to you that much how accurate the story is as long as it gets out there. I'm ridiculously focused on the truth. I see that some others extend a leeway that I don't, because its science, science is supposed to be all about the truth to me. I guess I didn't realize that people were seeing the "lies" in my opinion, and not really caring that much. So this has indeed been an eye opener.

BTW the only reason Science is similar to History is that it tells stories and uses Narratives. Science and History may overlap in places but the fact that you see it the same way you see history is a reflection in my mind as to how science has been presented. How can you suggest that you can't present English like History? Math and Science are most similar in my opinion, except for how its been presented to the public.

Foster Zygote, I'm kind of done with the way people pop in and out and cherry pick questions I've answered already, several times.

I do think I've used this thread to my own advantage of being able to realize where I've stated things that were confusing and areas that have helped me hone in my thoughts.

Henry Gee was a delightful find.

Thank you to everyone for all the input and conversation. Thank you for the positive and the negative. Engaging conversation is like pizza, even when its bad its still pretty good!

Cheers to all!!

Truethat

One last Henry Gee for the road!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/dec/14/uk.technology

Lithrael

24th July 2008, 10:26 AM

Litheral if you are honestly going to compare "architecture" to "science" in how its handled in public school education of kids in elementary, middle and high school then I guess we're done having this discussion because that's total malarkey.

I... didn't? You did? Apart from anything else, architecture basically isn't handled in grade school. I only brought it up as an example of something that a layperson isn't equipped to criticize properly.

Its also not the first time in the thread you've made a bogus statement just to "win the point" rather that moving the conversation forward.

Uh.. well yeah my debate technique is pretty crap, but.. What bogus statement?

I'm ridiculously focused on the truth. I see that some others extend a leeway that I don't, because its science, science is supposed to be all about the truth to me.

Yeah, definitely agree to disagree. It doesn't bother me that pop science presents good guesses and understandable analogies along with solid facts. I just don't see it eroding public trust in science the way you do.

Thank you to everyone for all the input and conversation. Thank you for the positive and the negative. Engaging conversation is like pizza, even when its bad its still pretty good!

Um... Thanks, I guess...?

truethat

24th July 2008, 10:41 AM

I stated that architecture was different than science in that its not pushed in mainstream public school education the way science is, you said yes it is. To me that's malarkey.

You also stated early that science doesn't push Shark documentaries that focus on shark attacks only pop CULTURE does that in films like "When Animals Attack"

When I posted links to several that had you chuckled it off with "I like to be contrary," or something like that

I do believe you or someone else earlier questioned my statement that science overturns behavioral theories of modern animals on a regular basis so that's why I'm skeptical about predictions of extinct animals we've never seen in an environment we've never seen. Talking BEHAVIOR here, not eating habits or things that can be predicted from fossils. Talking mating rituals and parenting styles etc.

Anyway you've been very helpful to me at realizing that you don't care that much about the truth. I'm not saying that in sarcastic way, I'm serious. I realized in this thread that a lot of people really don't care how accurate the information is, they are more focused on the forrest and I am the trees.

So its just a matter of perspective I guess.

We're going to Paphos on Saturday so I don't know if I'll have access just wanted not to leave the thread hanging.

Thank you very very much for all the contributors. Quix perhaps we can start a myth thread.

Cheers

Lithrael

24th July 2008, 11:14 AM

I stated that architecture was different than science in that its not pushed in mainstream public school education the way science is, you said yes it is. To me that's malarkey.

No, when you said architects aren't complaining about the way architecture is perceived, I said yes they are. I didn't say anything like "architecture is pushed in mainstream public school education the way science is."

You also stated early that science doesn't push Shark documentaries that focus on shark attacks only pop CULTURE does that in films like "When Animals Attack"

When I posted links to several that had you chuckled it off with "I like to be contrary," or something like that

Did I just not parse it out enough? "Well I did say I love being contrary" was in response to "I don't understand the point of your reply. Honestly at this point it seems like you are making excuses just to not have to agree with me." And I restated my point that I was disagreeing with your statement about shark shows promoting a lie, and then you explained when you said "total LIE" you meant a myth.

As for the shows, one was a NOVA from the early seventies, probably made as a direct response to the popularity of Jaws, the other was a stupid, but sound, show about shark bites, aparrantly made because they'd just gotten rights to use the only shark attack ever filmed. And I acknowledged that it was stupid. And I said it was a problem of economics.

As for behaviour in paleontology, it's just more fun and leads you to more places when you can make educated guesses to bridge some of the gaps. Science can only know so much for sure. I don't mind having to read a new journal every five years to see what ideas have changed with the times.

Characterizing this as "not caring about the truth" is a bit blunt.

But yeah I'm enjoying this too :) Have fun in Paphos!

Foster Zygote

24th July 2008, 12:00 PM

Foster Zygote, I'm kind of done with the way people pop in and out and cherry pick questions I've answered already, several times.

I've posted several reasonable questions that have gone unanswered by you, but perhaps you could be so kind as to point me to the post in which you answered my above query as I must have missed it.

Lithrael

24th July 2008, 03:57 PM

(...) perhaps you could be so kind as to point me to the post in which you answered my above query as I must have missed it.

True, just so you don't waste too much of your vacation time looking: Foster first asked this on page 10, post #382, and as far as I can tell the closest you got to answering was only part 2 of that question:

I'm not saying that the current situation is not that Creationists are the dominant problem, nor am I blaming science for the ruckus involving politics, education and the ID debate. So lets just put that aside.

truethat

25th July 2008, 02:58 AM

I've posted several reasonable questions that have gone unanswered by you, but perhaps you could be so kind as to point me to the post in which you answered my above query as I must have missed it.

Zygote, I haven't nailed down your question with a quote and reply. In my opinion the overall thrust of the thread answers your questions if you take time to read it and think about what is being said.

The last time you made a point about me not answering your question I had answered your question, not directly but in what I had posted over and over again in the thread. I took the time to answer your question directly and it didn't seem to really matter to you at all. You just seemed to like interupting the flow of the thread for what purpose? If you really were concerned the answer was there in the posts.

Your question here has been answered. Of the general public those who have a procilivity to mythical stories. There are quite a lot of people who take in evolution as the next ANSWER rather than a science. Likewise they do the same with Big Bang and Abiogenesis. For example although these sciences are still being developed people have concluded that they are FACT and that they are the answer.

People like this are everywhere in all walks of life, its not an isolated group and its not ONE side of the fence is creationists and the other are the educated folks.

The same kind of people who cling religiously to creationism could cling to these theories in response to the mythical instict that "storying up science" salves.

You aren't born a Creationist and stuck one for life. People choose this path often because it answers questions for them and they don't have to think for themselves. Those same people could decide that they like science's "answers" and "stories and myths" better and leap over to that mindset while basically taking their religious fervor with them.

If you don't understand this point, I don't know how else to explain it to you. Its not something I can "prove" on a message board sound bite. Its based on years of observation.

Dancing David

25th July 2008, 06:07 AM

I have been taught by people who use the precise neutral language of science, but it would just interfere with education in K-12, and astronomer will say things like :"this is a black hole here:, despite the fact that the statement would be "here is the photo/data/evidence which is likely to show the pattern that we associate/predict/expect with the model of black holes".

So this is applicable to all of science, here is why I don't want creationism taught in schools:

It lacks an evidentiary basis.

If the theory of natural selection through reproductive success (which is the proper title not evolution) was taught in the most neutrasl and precise way possible then the ID crowd would still disagree with it.

BTW will you Truethat start to use "theory of natural selection through reproductive success" instead of Theory of Evolution?

;)

Foster Zygote

25th July 2008, 09:23 AM

Zygote, I haven't nailed down your question with a quote and reply. In my opinion the overall thrust of the thread answers your questions if you take time to read it and think about what is being said.
I have read through the entire thread. I have observed you to make many statements that you seem unable to defend.

For example: You stated that it would be better to stop teaching evolution in schools in favor of teaching scientific methodology. I pointed out to you that scientific methodology is not so complex and involved that it will occupy all of a students time, leaving none in which to learn the findings and techniques of the various disciplines. In fact, I pointed out that learning the methodology without also learning where it has led us during centuries of inquiry would make for a terribly inadequate education.

You also seemed to state (you never clarified your statement) that biological science can be taught without also teaching evolution by natural selection. Joobz, myself and others all pointed out that the theory of evolution by natural selection is central to modern biological science. It would be like teaching astronomy without learning about gravity.

You stated in another thread that others were accusing you of being a creationist. A couple of posters asked you if you are a creationist, but no one made any accusations. I asked you to point out those accusations you claim were leveled at you.

The last time you made a point about me not answering your question I had answered your question, not directly but in what I had posted over and over again in the thread. I took the time to answer your question directly and it didn't seem to really matter to you at all. You just seemed to like interupting the flow of the thread for what purpose? If you really were concerned the answer was there in the posts.
I asked that you provide specific examples to support your claim. I have seen no specific examples that large numbers of people are turning "Origins and Big Bang into Creation myths". You keep saying that this is a pervasive problem. I have asked you to provide specific examples of this happening.

Your question here has been answered. Of the general public those who have a procilivity to mythical stories. There are quite a lot of people who take in evolution as the next ANSWER rather than a science. Likewise they do the same with Big Bang and Abiogenesis. For example although these sciences are still being developed people have concluded that they are FACT and that they are the answer.
Then where are your examples? Where is your evidence? "The general public', 'quite a lot of people', 'they". Who is "they"?

People like this are everywhere in all walks of life, its not an isolated group and its not ONE side of the fence is creationists and the other are the educated folks.

The same kind of people who cling religiously to creationism could cling to these theories in response to the mythical instict that "storying up science" salves.

You aren't born a Creationist and stuck one for life. People choose this path often because it answers questions for them and they don't have to think for themselves. Those same people could decide that they like science's "answers" and "stories and myths" better and leap over to that mindset while basically taking their religious fervor with them.
Please note where you have said "could cling to these theories" above. No one denies that they "could", however you have failed to support your claim that this is a pervasive problem worthy of our concern. Who are these people?

If you don't understand this point, I don't know how else to explain it to you. Its not something I can "prove" on a message board sound bite. Its based on years of observation.
I understand your point. You have simply failed to support it with logic or evidence. I would think that with years of observation you would be able to provide specific examples other than Neil Degrasse-Tyson finding the universe moving and beautiful, or paleontologists speculating about how dinosaurs may have lived based on known evidence.