Question About Evolutionary Narrative [Archive]

truethat

13th July 2008, 08:08 AM

For quite some time I've been trying to explain why the topic of Evolution and the subsequent debates surrounding it (wrong though they may be) have created an unease in me. Although I of course accept the theory of Evolution as the best answer we've come up with, however the extent to which we seem willing to push the unknowns and unknowables in the theory is disconcerting.

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.

Finally I came across an interesting book during research for school. It was a book of creation myths and I was surprised to see the "Big Bang Theory" in this book of Creation myths. Whether or not you accept the theory, the book was a simple compilation of "stories" that we tell ourselves to explain the unknown. I realized that the perspective that the writers of the book, not in any way arguing against or for Big Bang, but just objective observation that this particular science had crossed over into mythology.

I was able to finally put my finger on what has caused me to pause and say "Hold on, this doesn't sound like science any more"

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

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.

Does anyone else notice what I mean by this?

Magyar

13th July 2008, 08:41 AM

.

Does anyone else notice what I mean by this?

The short answer is NO! I am not a scientist and I don't play one on the internet.
On the other hand, you CLAIM to "believe" in Toe (and by the way that word usage in itself is a red flag) but you are certainly PLAYING woo ID/creationist on this thread.

Ad nauseam - What does big bang have to do with ToE
How many times do we have to explain that ToE has NOTHING, as IN NOTHING, let me clarify that NO THING, ZIP, NADA, ZILCH ZIPPO to do with the creation of the universe.

While there are legit debates about the MECHANISMS of ToE until you can demonstrate that you have at least a basic level of integrity/intelligence to understand that there are different fields of science and that one is neither equiped or interested in answering the questions of the other your "concerns" amount to nothing more than the usual pile of manure we get around here. (from cretinosts I mean)

Dancing David

13th July 2008, 08:41 AM

Well part of it will be the narrative conclusions that people draw from the evidence at hand.

The 'Big bang' phrase was started by a detractor, and people get all hung up on the ex nihilio narrative of the Big Expansion Event. here is the scoop the universe is not stated to come from 'nothing' in the BEE, it is that we can know nothing about the state of the universe prior to the BEE.

This is a common point of confusion and it is something that is put upon the BBE, the BBE does not say that the universe came from nothing, that is a common narrative put upon the BBE by those who try to extnd their temporaly based cause and effect thinking a a frame where we can get no data as of yet.

Now similar issues happen when we come to the origin of life as we find it here on the earth. Abiogenesis is a theory, and one that is gaining evidence as time goes by.

The theory of adaptation through the selection of traits that lead to reproductive benefit is another thoery.

Neither is meant to be a narrative of 'why are we here', the narrative is one of 'what processes might have gotten us here'.

I think that is a huge distiction.

bokonon

13th July 2008, 09:21 AM

Roboramma

13th July 2008, 03:29 PM

truethat, I don't really understand the distinction you're making with "narrative language." To me, that just means words that tell a story. I don't see how that takes one from the realm of science to myth. The story of the moon landing could be legend or journalism. To me, it really depends on how the tale is told, not on the fact that one is telling a tale.

Exactly. That something is told in the form of a narrative says absolutely nothing about its truth or falsehood - to get that you have to look at what's being said.

The question, "how did we get here?" has an answer. I don't really see how it can be answered except in the form of "this happened, then that," and it can only have explanatory power if we add "because of the other".

I think this is as true of geology as it is of evolutionary biology.

plumjam

13th July 2008, 03:50 PM

Good post, Truethat.

paximperium

13th July 2008, 04:01 PM

Delvo

13th July 2008, 05:09 PM

What field of science does NOT use "narrative" explanations of its principles?

e-sabbath

13th July 2008, 05:15 PM

I was just thinking of the narrative of the water cycle. Seems to be pretty standard to me.

truethat

13th July 2008, 07:25 PM

Thanks for the replies, key in what I wrote is when I stated that

we see that most Evolutionary diaglogue aimed at the general public has taken to using Narrative language to explain the science.

Now that narrative of the water cycle I don't know so if you'd like to share it that would be great.

source of quote:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/univ-nf.html

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.

Since evolution when it is explained to the general public is peppered throughout with these sorts of narrative language, much of the public is often confused as to what is fact, deduction, or just plain "seems like it might be an answer" that last sort of explanation tends to present itself as if it is the only viable theory. The alternative is that as skeptics we should insist upon exploring other explanations. (We can leave Creationism out of it at this point, as we know this is not the answer)

I doubt you'd see something like that in other scientific explanations. But it would be interesting if you shared some of them.

truethat

13th July 2008, 07:36 PM

The short answer is NO! I am not a scientist and I don't play one on the internet.
On the other hand, you CLAIM to "believe" in Toe (and by the way that word usage in itself is a red flag) but you are certainly PLAYING woo ID/creationist on this thread.

Ad nauseam - What does big bang have to do with ToE
How many times do we have to explain that ToE has NOTHING, as IN NOTHING, let me clarify that NO THING, ZIP, NADA, ZILCH ZIPPO to do with the creation of the universe.

While there are legit debates about the MECHANISMS of ToE until you can demonstrate that you have at least a basic level of integrity/intelligence to understand that there are different fields of science and that one is neither equiped or interested in answering the questions of the other your "concerns" amount to nothing more than the usual pile of manure we get around here. (from cretinosts I mean)

This is a red flag post to me and very typical. I specifically wrote that I "accept the theory of Evolution" and its funny because I made sure that I didn't say that I "believe in Evolution" but instead of reading what I wrote you made a snap judgement and "assigned belief" to me while ignoring the point of what I am saying. I would also caution you against your triumphant AHA moments with massive finger pointing before reading what I wrote.

Additionally I will caution you against assuming that someone who says they BELIEVE in Evolution has betrayed anything more about themselves than a slip of the tongue. One of the reason that I don't say I "believe" in evolution is that its become a sort of casual but erroneous statement. (Edited to add) Much like your use of the phrase "creation of the universe" chuckles.

Try reading the post again and you will see that I didn't say I believed in Evolution. All your red flags are ones of your own invention and pretty standard for the knee jerk reaction that even questioning the way Evolution and Big Bang theories seem to be presented in Narrative Language.

I find it quite typical that Closet Creationist is the throw back slanderous lable tossed at a person that questions the way Evolution and Big Bang theories are presented to the public.

Now as to your comment that Big Bang has nothing to do with Evolution, I didn't say it did. I'm not arguing about the validity of the theories. I'm simply pointing out that it strikes me that these two scientific theories have slid into using Narrative Language.

Your ad naseum was an impatient attack on me, when, I've done none of the things you accuse me of, mistaken none of the theories as having one to do with the other, you on the other hand failed to even understand the question I posed.

Wowbagger

13th July 2008, 07:37 PM

truethat

13th July 2008, 07:45 PM

truethat, I don't really understand the distinction you're making with "narrative language." To me, that just means words that tell a story. I don't see how that takes one from the realm of science to myth. The story of the moon landing could be legend or journalism. To me, it really depends on how the tale is told, not on the fact that one is telling a tale.

This is exactly what I mean. Telling a story is not the same thing as explaining a fact. As you say it really depends on how the tale is told, I agree with this very much.

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

Its quite easy to find examples. just do a google search.

truethat

13th July 2008, 07:56 PM

The narratives are only a tool to explain the findings, not the end product. And, all of them are subject to revision, as we discover new findings.

It is the discoveries, themselves, you ought to focus on, when debating Creationists. Evolution helps us make ones that are independently verifiable. Creationism does not help us generate such things.

It is too easy for Creationists to claim the narratives are "just so" stories. But, they can't refute the power of the theory to build testable ideas, and make new discoveries about life.

I'm not debating a Creationist. I wouldn't waste my breath. I don't understand why people get all revved up at the idea of debating a Creationist. To me its childish and betrays a bully attitude of sorts. It reminds me of debating with a child whether or not the tooth fairy exists. Who is the bigger fool? The child who believes in the tooth fairy or the grown up who spends two hours trying to prove to the child that the fairy doesn't exist?

Additionally the discoveries themselves stand for themselves. I agree with you there. So then why embelish? Why add to the "story" of the facts instead of just presenting what we do know?

Another example of this is Evolutionary Art. By this I mean the way for example dinosaurs are posed in Museums to reflect the current mythology about dinosaur behavior. So for example a T Rex posed bent over as if it were attacking, would be an artistic interpretation far different than a T Rex positioned like a scavanger?

What we do know, is fascinating and beautiful, but it seems that science has taken in these fields to focusing much more on what we don't quite know, rather than presenting what we do.

Roboramma

13th July 2008, 08:11 PM

One reason is that some of us see beauty in the natural world, as it really is, and are interested in conveying that beauty to others. The late Carl Sagan was amazing at this. I don't see what you think is wrong with doing so.

Is a narrative false simply because its narrative?

If I see a friend and he asks me what I've done today, and I answer by giving a narrative of my day, does that make it false? or should I present that information in a graph?

If not, why shouldn't I do the same thing with someone who asks about how life evolved?

I read a book once about life returning to north america after the ice melted - life recolonizing the previously glaciated land. It read as a narative. It had nothing to do with evolution. It was also, as far as I know, very accurate, and gave good descriptions of how the knowledge that it was explaining had been gathered (pollen analyisis, for instance).
Was that book inaccurate because it used a narrative style? If so, how would you explain the same facts without narrative?

JoeTheJuggler

13th July 2008, 08:16 PM

While I agree that "narrative language" can water down proper scientific/objective language, that in and by itself does not really affect the science itself.

That's what I was thinking. Where exactly is this narrative language found? Biology journals?

truethat

13th July 2008, 08:25 PM

Hmmm I think I should clarify what I mean by Narrative Language

http://www.units.muohio.edu/technologyandhumanities/nardef.htm

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/narrative

http://universal-denizen.blogspot.com/2008/01/definition-of-narrative-narrative.html

To me it means telling a story. So the way I would differentiate is that for example when you explain the function of the liver, its not told as a story but rather as exposition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exposition

truethat

13th July 2008, 08:32 PM

That's what I was thinking. Where exactly is this narrative language found? Biology journals?

My observation is that this language is used when presenting the scientific ideas to the public.

I've seen also some slippage in the way scientists makes statements. As I said in the original post, it seems these fields have a bit of "this proves XYZ" when its not necessarily the case. I don't see in other fields scientists making erroneous statements like these without immediately being called out for it by their peers.

Example

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513666/A-40-000-year-old-tooth-proves-Neanderthals-moved-place-place.html

Professor Michael Richards, from Durham University, said: "Strontium from ingested food and water is absorbed as if it was calcium in mammals during tooth formation.

"Our tests show that this individual must have lived in a different location when the crown of the tooth was formed than where the tooth was found.

"The evidence indicates that this Neanderthal moved over a relatively wide range of at least 20 kilometres or even further in their lifetime.

"Therefore we can say that Neanderthals did move over their lifetimes and were not confined to limited geographical areas."

I would argue that this is not a scientific statement. The evidence actually indicates that THIS Neanderthal moved but that doesn't "prove" that Neanderthals moved. It just "supports the theory" that they do.

D'rok

13th July 2008, 08:33 PM

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

Because the public isn't qualified to understand the science itself. D'uh. What's the problem? Hell, due to rampant specialization, it's possible that even some scientists in other disciplines aren't qualified to understand the science.

For humans, the universe is made of stories. I like stories. I like true (for certain provisional definitions of "true") stories best. Not being qualified to understand the actual science, science-based stories are the truest stories I know.

Roboramma

13th July 2008, 08:36 PM

“narrative[na-ra-tiv], a telling of some true or fictitious event or connected sequence of events, recounted by a narrator … consist[s of] a set of events (the story) recounted in a process of narration (or discourse), in which the events are selected and arranged in a particular order (the plot).”"
A narrative is some kind of retelling, often in words (though it is possible to mime a story), of something that happened (a story). The narrative is not the story itself but rather the telling of the story -- which is why it is so often used in phrases such as "written narrative," "oral narrative," etc. 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. In a series of events, a car crash takes a split second. A narrative account, however, might be almost entirely about the crash itself and the few seconds leading up to it. Narratives thus shape history (the series of events, the story of what happened).

Sounds like what i've been talking about any way. I mean, how do we explain a sequence of events without referring to a sequence of events?

Evolutionary science certainly encompasses more than the story of what happened, the historical science of how life came about - it also includes a lot of descriptions of processes which needn't be explained as a narrative (and aren't). But again, when it comes to the course that life took on this planet, should that be explained? If so, how, if not as a narrative?

I think it might help, truethat, if you supplied an example of some "evolutionary narrative" that you feel could be better explained in some other way. I think it's quite possible that such examples exist, and would be interested to see one, as it would help me to understand your point. :)

truethat

13th July 2008, 08:36 PM

Because the public isn't qualified to understand the science itself. D'uh. What's the problem? Hell, due to rampant specialization, it's possible that even some scientists in other disciplines aren't qualified to understand the science.

For humans, the universe is made of stories. I like stories. I like true (for certain provisional definitions of "true") stories best. Science-based stories are the truest stories I know, not being qualified to understand the actual science.

What's the problem? The problem is that its presented to the public in a way that is mythology presented as science. I like stories too. I love mythology. So why is it if science is going to "have fun" and just tell stories, they get reactionary when someone points out that fun embellished stories aren't science?

I think this practice causes a lot of unnecessary head aches and it should be eliminated if it is to be taken as science.

D'rok

13th July 2008, 08:40 PM

Roboramma

13th July 2008, 08:44 PM

I would argue that this is not a scientific statement. The evidence actually indicates that THIS Neanderthal moved but that doesn't "prove" that Neanderthals moved. It just "supports the theory" that they do.

I see you supplied an example at the same time I was asking for one. :)

Regarding this however, two things. First, I think your objection is somewhat weak. Yes, it's true that we don't know for certain that "neanderthals moved", but the chance that the only neaderthal that moved over it's lifetime was one that happened to fossilize and be found by us is so unlikely that at the least we can say that some neanderthals moved.
Whether this can be generalised to say that the behavior is species-typical? Well I likely agree with you, but there may be a lot more supporting evidence that I'm unaware of.

The other point I'd like to make is that such statements, especially in the press, are certainly not limited to evolutionary biology, paleontology, etc.

The third point I'd like to make is that the fact that he made an error (if this is an error) or a slightly inaccurate statement, doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with the fact that the explanation uses narrative language. The error, if it is one, is an error of fact, not of narration.

truethat

13th July 2008, 08:49 PM

OK I'll google some

The link I gave above is a great example of what I mean. Not the Neanderthal Tooth, that to me was slippage. The Big Bang page from Nova is filled with Narrative.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/univ-nf.html

I also want to point out, I'm not talking about fictional fun stories about dinosaurs and whatnot, but presentations that have science supporting them.

Here's one that I would consider "science". This is at the Museum of Natural History. This is exposition.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/evolution/what-is-evolution/the-theory/index.html

Whereas for example this comes across to me as Narrative
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/415498335/

I'll get a few more for you if you need but between this one and the earlier big bang one I think its easy to see, let me get the kids to bed and I'll find another few.

truethat

13th July 2008, 08:51 PM

I think you missed the main point of my post, which was...

"Because the public isn't qualified to understand the science itself."

The secondary point is that, because the human universe is made of stories, most humans lacking in certain expertise will not retain information that is not in story form.

How does using Narrative story telling to explain theories to the public in any way benefit or assist the public in understandign science properly?

All it does is cause confusion. And to the second point I don't agree with putting it in bite size portions and easy to swallow tablets of fiction, just because people will remember it better.

As I understand it, that's religion, not science.

Delvo

13th July 2008, 08:53 PM

Its quite easy to find examples.Not without reading your mind on the subject of your distinction between narrative and non-narrative writing. I don't see the distinction you're talking about, so I won't be able to comment on it or offer explanations until I know more about how to distinguish the things as you are doing.

truethat

13th July 2008, 08:57 PM

Not without reading your mind on the subject of your distinction between narrative and non-narrative writing. I don't see the distinction you're talking about, so I won't be able to comment on it or offer explanations until I know more about how to distinguish the things as you are doing.

I've posted several examples and even several links of defintions. So why do you suggest that I expect you to read my mind???? :catfight: LOL

HEY!!!

Just found out I'm not the only one who has noticed this. I would imagine most people who study mythology recognize this easier than those who do not.

Here's an article I haven't read yet

http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/2141/landau.pdf

Here's a video that illustrates what I mean. And you'll note that the journalist uses the term "Human Narrative" you'll also notice what I meant about Evolutionary Art depicting skin and hair and such things that are pretty much unknown.

Now for ME, the ability to know the dna and molecular information is what I feel is the way to go, rather than artistic renderings of what we imagine.

http://video.on.nytimes.com/index.jsp?fr_story=bf776f44fec9f13d5d63f006a0deb18 e2aeb4e05

D'rok

13th July 2008, 09:00 PM

Roboramma

13th July 2008, 09:01 PM

I'll get a few more for you if you need but between this one and the earlier big bang one I think its easy to see, let me get the kids to bed and I'll find another few.
Thanks for that. :)

I have to say, I remember reading a book on cladistics in which the author makes a similar point to what you're saying. (forget the full title, something like "Cladistics: the something or other this and that").
I agreed with him to a certain extent. He points out that a lot of accounts are, as you say, narrative accounts, when we don't necessarily know the seqence of events. In particular he talked about ancestry and decent in regards to fossil species: it's unlikely that any particular fossil species we uncover is an ancestral species to us, rather than a branch that was nearby to our line. Moreover, when it comes to ancestral species, the fact that the first homo habilis that we find in the record comes before the first homo errectus doesn't mean that homo habilis is ancestral to homo errectus - the two could have a common ancestor.

I think it's a decent point about accuracy. I don't think, though, that it's a necessary problem with narratives.

Regarding the articles you posted (the first one, with the animation was really cool by the way) for instance, in the second the only thing they said that I wasn't sure was true was: When food was abundant, they buried supplies in the permafrost—an ancient form of deep-freezing.
But that's just because I'd never heard it before.

Now they say a few other things, about art for instance, which could be interpreted to mean that art only arose at that time, rather than that we don't know when it arose, but that we first have evidence from it at that time.
That's a subtle point, though, and I think a problem with science writing in general, not narratives in particular.

truethat

13th July 2008, 09:11 PM

This isn't religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov#Popular_science_2
http://www.amazon.com/Brocas-Brain-Reflections-Romance-Science/dp/0345336895

I'm not sure what your point is but I could very well argue that if taken up as "THE ANSWER" it would be regarded as religion.

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, or religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

I would wager that many people would treat these books as religious.

But I'm not going to segue off topic into religion. My bad for using that word.

So can we continue the original topic, I would imagine that Issac Asimov would be concerned if one of his science fiction books were presented as science.

What is science is science. What is embelished for the sake of story is no longer science but science fiction. Asimov wrote both and obviously saw a distinction.

Does anyone argue that point?

truethat

13th July 2008, 09:15 PM

Thanks for that. :)

I have to say, I remember reading a book on cladistics in which the author makes a similar point to what you're saying. (forget the full title, something like "Cladistics: the something or other this and that").
I agreed with him to a certain extent. He points out that a lot of accounts are, as you say, narrative accounts, when we don't necessarily know the seqence of events. In particular he talked about ancestry and decent in regards to fossil species: it's unlikely that any particular fossil species we uncover is an ancestral species to us, rather than a branch that was nearby to our line. Moreover, when it comes to ancestral species, the fact that the first homo habilis that we find in the record comes before the first homo errectus doesn't mean that homo habilis is ancestral to homo errectus - the two could have a common ancestor.

I think it's a decent point about accuracy. I don't think, though, that it's a necessary problem with narratives.

Regarding the articles you posted (the first one, with the animation was really cool by the way) for instance, in the second the only thing they said that I wasn't sure was true was:
But that's just because I'd never heard it before.

Now they say a few other things, about art for instance, which could be interpreted to mean that art only arose at that time, rather than that we don't know when it arose, but that we first have evidence from it at that time.
That's a subtle point, though, and I think a problem with science writing in general, not narratives in particular.

Thanks for actually taking the time to try to understand what I am saying!!

I'm going to look into the source you mentioned.

Its not that data is true or false, but rather the lack of words like "Evidence shows that this happened so it supports the theory that this was a behavior etc etc etc"

its the wording. You can tell the same thing in exposition as narrative so why the use of Narrative.

As has been pointed out people like stories. And I get that. However when presenting science, I believe we should be careful about using narrative.

D'rok

13th July 2008, 09:27 PM

I would wager that many people would treat these books as religious.

Doubtful.

So can we continue the original topic, I would imagine that Issac Asimov would be concerned if one of his science fiction books were presented as science.I agree.

What is science is science. What is embelished for the sake of story is no longer science but science fiction. Asimov wrote both and obviously saw a distinction.Asimov wrote Science Fiction and Popular Science. The latter is in exactly the sort of narrative style that you seem to have such a problem with - on occasion, he was downright poetic. He wrote in that style so that Arts grads like me could grasp some of the basic science without needing to spend 12 years at M.I.T. getting the necessary theoretical base. Same goes for most popular science - Sagan, Hawking, etc. There was exactly one equation in A Brief History of Time.

How, exactly, can an expert communicate science to a non-expert without using narrative techniques to some degree? There is just no way to completely avoid metaphor and symbolism - that is the way we learn and process new information outside of the lab.

JoeTheJuggler

13th July 2008, 09:30 PM

My observation is that this language is used when presenting the scientific ideas to the public.

I've seen also some slippage in the way scientists makes statements.

I'd agree with that, depending on what the source is. Popular media coverage of science stories is generally pretty sloppy. Textbooks are full of gross oversimplifications and loose language. I used to work as an interpreter for the Deaf and so sat in on a lot of college lectures. Especially in more general classes, I heard the pathetic fallacy used often. ("This molecule wants to bind with hydrogen. . . ")

I remember reading in Stephen Jay Gould's The Full House about how many high school biology books include a "ladder of life" description of the evolution of life on Earth. One example is the way the evolution of the modern horse is presented from eohippus. It's almost always depicted as a one-way trend from a smaller, multi-toed animal that gets bigger and gets fewer toes, as if there was a single trend.

Still--I don't think this is a case of "slippage". In other words, I don't think it used to be better and is now getting worse. I think this is the way it always has been.

Wowbagger

13th July 2008, 09:38 PM

Additionally the discoveries themselves stand for themselves. I agree with you there. So then why embelish? Why add to the "story" of the facts instead of just presenting what we do know? Like I said, the "stories" are just tools to communicate the facts, in a manner that is easy for human psychology to digest.

Your opening post seems to rant about the problems of these stories. I say don't get so worked up about that. The more important stuff is the science. The "story" is just a clever way to summarize it.

Another example of this is Evolutionary Art. By this I mean the way for example dinosaurs are posed in Museums to reflect the current mythology about dinosaur behavior. So for example a T Rex posed bent over as if it were attacking, would be an artistic interpretation far different than a T Rex positioned like a scavanger? It is merely our best guess. And, museums have been known to adjust their dinosaur displays, as new evidence comes in.

What would be your alternative?

truethat

13th July 2008, 09:42 PM

I see your point and I think my argument is that when you are using Narrative Language to discuss the "unknown and unknowable" as I stated in the OP, then you are pushing it from science into mythology.

I'll use two different examples to explain what I mean

Exposition

whoops forgot link
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0219_020219sereno.html

Mythology and Narrative

The illustration is Mythology
http://www.raul-martin.net/raulmartin/unogaleria/sarcosuchus.jpg

This article uses Narrative language

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/01/011025.sarcosuchus.shtml

Specific example:

"It was living an ambush lifestyle," Sereno said. "Despite its enormous size, much of the time this animal was hiding 95 percent of its body under water."

We don't know this for sure. We assume this is so.

I understand that you don't want to agree with me, but it would behoove you to read a few of the examples I've posted already and give an opinion on the language used.

I don't think its necessary for me to sit here posting example after example. Anyone who has ever been to an exhibit or seen a Nova show will know what I am referring to.

truethat

13th July 2008, 09:44 PM

Like I said, the "stories" are just tools to communicate the facts, in a manner that is easy for human psychology to digest.

Your opening post seems to rant about the problems of these stories. I say don't get so worked up about that. The more important stuff is the science. The "story" is just a clever way to summarize it.

It is merely our best guess. And, museums have been known to adjust their dinosaur displays, as new evidence comes in.

What would be your alternative?

My alternative would be pretty boring I concede that, however I think it is dangerous to present things as "facts" when they are creative interpretations of the facts.

BTW I notice that you referred to my opening post as a rant. I don't agree with your discription. I believe that actually people are hyper defensive about any sort of criticism directed as these fields of science. This is not a Scientific reaction either. Science welcomes criticism and questions so why the taboo about questioning these fields?

I note as well that I was immediately accused of being a closet creationist or a "woo" or whatever.

But my OP was a skeptics question. I am skeptical about the way the stories are presented to the public.

Is this not a skeptic's site? Why the umbrage?

truethat

13th July 2008, 09:53 PM

I'd agree with that, depending on what the source is. Popular media coverage of science stories is generally pretty sloppy. Textbooks are full of gross oversimplifications and loose language. I used to work as an interpreter for the Deaf and so sat in on a lot of college lectures. Especially in more general classes, I heard the pathetic fallacy used often. ("This molecule wants to bind with hydrogen. . . ")

I remember reading in Stephen Jay Gould's The Full House about how many high school biology books include a "ladder of life" description of the evolution of life on Earth. One example is the way the evolution of the modern horse is presented from eohippus. It's almost always depicted as a one-way trend from a smaller, multi-toed animal that gets bigger and gets fewer toes, as if there was a single trend.

Still--I don't think this is a case of "slippage". In other words, I don't think it used to be better and is now getting worse. I think this is the way it always has been.

Thanks for the reply, I suppose that I hold science in high standards and was surprised to see the sweeping way this kind of thing is allowed with Evolutionary Theories and Origins, Big Bang and whatnot. I didn't realize this was as common as you say. Interesting that you mentioned that you noticed it in a Deaf Class, I am hearing impaired so perhaps I have a heightened sensitivity in listening to what people are actually saying.

D'rok

13th July 2008, 09:55 PM

plumjam

13th July 2008, 10:08 PM

Truethat, for what it's worth, I agree with you.
I'm not so sure, though, whether it's mainly the use of narrative language which is at fault. Narrative language is used in all kinds of areas, and is capable of conveying truths in a quicker, less technical way.
I'd say that in regard to the TOE the problem is more the employment of non-evidenced whacking great imaginative leaps in order to bring everything into conformity with the overarching theory and thus with the prevalent naturalism of our age.

You have studied mythology (I haven't really). I'd imagine that there is no human society without its own Creation Myth. We need ours too.
I think the need for humans to have some conception of where they came from is so powerful and universal that the people pointing out that 'we don't really know' just tend to get brushed aside in favour of theories made up of scant evidence and big chunks of pressurised imagination.

D'rok

13th July 2008, 10:15 PM

Truethat, for what it's worth, I agree with you.
I'm not so sure, though, whether it's mainly the use of narrative language which is at fault. Narrative language is used in all kinds of areas, and is capable of conveying truths in a quicker, less technical way.
I'd say that in regard to the TOE the problem is more the employment of non-evidenced whacking great imaginative leaps in order to bring everything into conformity with the overarching theory and thus the prevalent naturalism of our age.

You have studied mythology (I haven't really). I'd imagine that there is no human society without its own Creation Myth. We need ours too.
I think the need for humans to have some conception of where they came from is so powerful and universal that the people pointing out that 'we don't really know' just tend to get brushed aside in favour of theories made up of scant evidence and big chunks of pressurised imagination.

You just got a +2 on your Fundy attack roll for conflating evolutionary theory with abiogenesis and for denial of evidence. Unfortunately for you, Science's AC is too high - you miss.

If you took the obvious crap out of that post, you would have a decent point re: the universal human need for stories/myths.

truethat

13th July 2008, 10:21 PM

I'll see your examples and raise you one passage from Sophocles:

"Great laws tower above us, reared on high
born for the brilliant vault of heaven -
Olympian Sky their only father,
nothing mortal, no man gave them birth,
their memory deathless, never lost in sleep:
within them lives a mighty god, the god does not
grow old."

Now that's mythology. (And lovely, IMO). Do you suppose the Greek Chorus is referring to the law of gravity or whatnot? Of course not; it's simply the best understanding of the rules of the cosmos and our place in it available at the time.

Do popularizers of science really do a disservice if they use a good turn of phrase? Surely it is acceptable to retain the poetry but abandon the ghost in the machine. No mighty god lives within the popular science narrative - but if that narrative can't inspire, it won't take.

Are you asking my opinion or is this a rhetorical question? My opinion is YES. Especially if the argument for teaching science in schools without criticism is that "science belongs in the classroom, religion, ergo mythology does not"

Mythology has no place in science. I see that you concede that science employs mythological traditions to get its point across but as have several others, shrugged the shoulders that its no big deal. So then why the scathing attacks on religions who try to do the same thing?

To me part of the reason that people are confused about what is true or not in the evolutionary theory is that narratives confuse people as to what is fact and what is a story tellers embellished version of science. 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.

Truethat, for what it's worth, I agree with you.
I'm not so sure, though, whether it's mainly the use of narrative language which is at fault. Narrative language is used in all kinds of areas, and is capable of conveying truths in a quicker, less technical way.
I'd say that in regard to the TOE the problem is more the employment of non-evidenced whacking great imaginative leaps in order to bring everything into conformity with the overarching theory and thus with the prevalent naturalism of our age.

You have studied mythology (I haven't really). I'd imagine that there is no human society without its own Creation Myth. We need ours too.
I think the need for humans to have some conception of where they came from is so powerful and universal that the people pointing out that 'we don't really know' just tend to get brushed aside in favour of theories made up of scant evidence and big chunks of pressurised imagination.

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.

DeusPhasmatis

13th July 2008, 10:21 PM

plumjam

13th July 2008, 10:23 PM

You just got a +2 on your Fundy attack roll for conflating evolutionary theory with abiogenesis and for denial of evidence. Unfortunately for you, Science's AC is too high - you miss.

If you took the obvious crap out of that post, you would have a decent point re: the universal human need for stories/myths.

Please resit your Reading Comprehension 101. Nowhere in that post did I mention the origin of life.
There you guys go again, with your big leaps of imagination.
Also, your aggressive response is a case in point of what Truethat mentions in the OP; the kind of anti-scientific knee-jerk hotheaded reaction witnessed when the TOE is even questioned.
Congratulations; in only three sentences you managed to add quite a bit of weight to the arguments of both myself and Truethat, while meaning to oppose them.

Roboramma

13th July 2008, 10:28 PM

I'm going to look into the source you mentioned. I think the title I gave may be slightly inaccurate... :p

Okay, here it is: http://www.amazon.com/DEEP-TIME-CLADISTICS-REVOLUTION-EVOLUTION/dp/1857029860/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216008478&sr=8-1

Its not that data is true or false, but rather the lack of words like "Evidence shows that this happened so it supports the theory that this was a behavior etc etc etc" I can see that to an extent: when the lack of those words is truly misleading: your t-rex example, for instance. There, I think you've got a good point. The diorama should say something like: "an artist's interpretation of the possible feeding habits of a t-rex" or something like that.

its the wording. You can tell the same thing in exposition as narrative so why the use of Narrative. Yeah, you can, but not as well, not in a way that can turn an understanding of science in to poetry.
I actually think that's valuable - at least when it doesn't mislead. Sagan often talked about how science requires skepticism and wonder both. Wonder gives us the imagination and incentive to look for new ideas, even if they seem crazy. Skepticism gives us the tools to test if those ideas are true or not. I think he had a point.

And I think there's something very valuable in giving the general public the chance to see the beauty and wonder in the world that is being explored by science. Sometimes (far too often) this is done in a way that is even deliberately misleading so as to make it more interesting. I like that as little as you, I think. But other times the poetry can be maintained without losing the accuracy, and I think that's very valuable.

As has been pointed out people like stories. And I get that. However when presenting science, I believe we should be careful about using narrative.

I agree to an extent: we should always be careful about how it's presented, about the possible misconceptions (read Dawkins, for instance, the guy constantly goes out of his way to clarify possible misconceptions, but still manages great beauty in his writing from time to time).

The thing is, I'm still not sure that this is a problem of narrative per se rather than science writing in general. I read an article (linked on this forum) earlier today that does a poor service to quantum mechanics - not by explaining it through narrative, but just by getting overly excited and explaining certain things on such a surface level that those who don't already know something will be lead in to a complete misunderstanding of what's actually being said.

When I first started reading about science, I fell in to those sorts of misunderstandings a lot, and I don't really appreciate it, so I understand that you care about avoiding them. I just think that narrative isn't the problem any more than writing in english is - the problem is authors who (deliberately or not) mislead their audience.
Sometimes, I suppose, it might be easier to write a narrative that doesn't bother to explain the subtleties. But I think it's the fault of a lazy or poorly informed writer to do so, not the narrative style itself.

I'm quite interested in this topic because I really feel that we need more beauty in science writing, not less.

For instance, I'm curious how you feel about this:
p86BPM1GV8M

Would you class that as narratives that are a problem, or not? (I ask sincerely here as I don't know either way. Personally I think it's very valuable, not misleading, and beautiful writing - that it's also science writing is great, because I think we need more of it.)

edit: ignore the last couple of seconds of that video. :P

truethat

13th July 2008, 10:29 PM

You find such "narrative" language used to discuss Evolution because the people being discussed with are Creationists who are only concerned with it's implication to their mythos. They force the issue. The science isn't what matters, what they can twist into a narrative does. See Ben Stein (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLuj1705u24&feature=related) mutilate perfectly good science with his narrative interpretation; he ridicules it so he can push his own narrative mythos through.

I'm not sure what the point is in this???

Are you suggesting that when Scientists put forth theories to the general public they word them like Mythology because that is more palatable to the Creationists?

Again, how is this science? So now its the Creationists fault that Scientists make things up in between the facts??

Not understanding your point here? If you could rephrase it I'd very much appreciate it.

truethat

13th July 2008, 10:30 PM

Please resit your Reading Comprehension 101. Nowhere in that post did I mention the origin of life.
There you guys go again, with your big leaps of imagination.
Also, your aggressive response is a case in point of what Truethat mentions in the OP; the kind of anti-scientific knee-jerk hotheaded reaction witnessed when the TOE is even questioned.
Congratulations; in only four sentences you managed to add quite a bit of weight to the arguments of both myself and Truethat, while meaning to oppose them.

I have to agree that words are being put to you that you didn't say at all? Not understanding this approach in this debate, it seems to have happened several times already.

D'rok

13th July 2008, 10:39 PM

Are you asking my opinion or is this a rhetorical question? My opinion is YES. Especially if the argument for teaching science in schools without criticism is that "science belongs in the classroom, religion, ergo mythology does not"

Quibble: Science belongs in the Science classroom, religion, ergo mythology does not.

Mythology has no place in science. I see that you concede that science employs mythological traditions to get its point across but as have several others, shrugged the shoulders that its no big deal. So then why the scathing attacks on religions who try to do the same thing?

One is fact based; the other is faith based. One has evidence and is falsifiable; the other is make believe.

Your fundamental mistake, IMO is conflating narrative language with mythology. Popular science doesn't employ mythological traditions; it employs poetic language. It borrows the tone, not the substance. This distinction is all-important.

To me part of the reason that people are confused about what is true or not in the evolutionary theory is that narratives confuse people as to what is fact and what is a story tellers embellished version of science. Confusing people for the sake of the best understanding at the time, is not science.

I think you are chasing your tail. The reason people are confused about evolutionary theory is because a) it conflicts with their mythology of choice (usually X-tianity in our culture); and b) Brangelina just had twins.

truethat

13th July 2008, 10:39 PM

[QUOTE=Roboramma;3858640]I think the title I gave may be slightly inaccurate... :p

Okay, here it is: http://www.amazon.com/DEEP-TIME-CLADISTICS-REVOLUTION-EVOLUTION/dp/1857029860/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216008478&sr=8-1

I actually think that's valuable - at least when it doesn't mislead. Sagan often talked about how science requires skepticism and wonder both. Wonder gives us the imagination and incentive to look for new ideas, even if they seem crazy. Skepticism gives us the tools to test if those ideas are true or not. I think he had a point.
QUOTE]

You know, I think you've hit on something very significant, sorry to cut the rest of your post but I think a big part of the problem with Scientists in these fields is a major resistance to being vulnerable.

The video you linked I'm sure I've seen before and that is not "embellished" narrative.

This is a worst case offender here, but its what I mean and although this was not necessarily made by the science community and obviously meant to be a sort of fantasy, I find the language used in the clip very similar to other true scientists and the things they will say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7SLMDlB6x0

DeusPhasmatis

13th July 2008, 10:43 PM

I'm not sure what the point is in this???

Are you suggesting that when Scientists put forth theories to the general public they word them like Mythology because that is more palatable to the Creationists?

Again, how is this science? So now its the Creationists fault that Scientists make things up in between the facts??

Not understanding your point here? If you could rephrase it I'd very much appreciate it.

Do you speak of scientists, or reporters? They are worded like mythology, yes. But I do not think it is those who do the tests that word them so.

D'rok

13th July 2008, 10:45 PM

Please resit your Reading Comprehension 101. Nowhere in that post did I mention the origin of life.

Oops, there it is:

I'd say that in regard to the TOE the problem is more the employment of non-evidenced whacking great imaginative leaps in order to bring everything into conformity with the overarching theory and thus with the prevalent naturalism of our age.

I'd imagine that there is no human society without its own Creation Myth. We need ours too. I think the need for humans to have some conception of where they came from is so powerful and universal that the people pointing out that 'we don't really know' just tend to get brushed aside in favour of theories made up of scant evidence and big chunks of pressurised imagination.

First bolded bit = origin of life, the universe and everything. I'll retract the word "abiogenesis" as it wasn't really correct, but the conflation with evolutionary theory still stands.

Second bolded bit = denial of evidence. (Also occurs in first sentence)

I stand by my post.

plumjam

13th July 2008, 10:46 PM

I have to agree that words are being put to you that you didn't say at all? Not understanding this approach in this debate, it seems to have happened several times already.

It's a pretty common pattern here. In my experience the forum is rather misrepresenting itself by wanting to appropriate the word 'skepticism' for itself, and wanting to associate itself with the prestige of science.
It's not that at all. Rather it's a place overwhelmingly populated by people who are believers in philosophical naturalism.
So science is good when its findings support naturalism, science is bad when it brings naturalism into question. Skepticism is good when it is used to defend naturalism, when skepticism questions naturalism it is no longer 'real skepticism'.. and will go by any of dozens of other epithets.

The TOE is perhaps the central supporting pillar of naturalism (as people here view it). Therefore, to question the TOE is to be trying to bring down the temple upon the faithful. Hence the heated, often irrational, reactions.

truethat

13th July 2008, 10:47 PM

Quibble: Science belongs in the Science classroom, religion, ergo mythology does not.

One is fact based; the other is faith based. One has evidence and is falsifiable; the other is make believe.

Your fundamental mistake, IMO is conflating narrative language with mythology. Popular science doesn't employ mythological traditions; it employs poetic language. It borrows the tone, not the substance. This distinction is all-important.

I think you are chasing your tail. The reason people are confused about evolutionary theory is because a) it conflicts with their mythology of choice (usually X-tianity in our culture); and b) Brangelina just had twins.

Why are you even arguing with me if you are agreeing with me? LOL? :words:

Exactly Science belongs in the science classroom and MYTHOLOGY does not. So why are you arguing.

Text books for students of evolution are filled with mythology. This is my complaint. The reason people are confused about evolutionary theory is that most people do not understand the distinction between what is embellished and what is not. And science in no way helps this by supporting mythological representations of extinct creatures does it? When you talk about a dinosaurs BEHAVIOR for example, you are pretty much GUESSING because there is no hard scientific evidence to back that up. You can base it on deduction as well but to present that deduction in a statement of fact is flat out lying.

As far as "conflating narrative language with mythology. I think you have a common understanding of mythology. It doesn't mean a "made up story" rather

Myths were told to explain the creation and organization of the universe, fashion of man, and establishment of civilization. It teaches people lessons and it had to do with history & culture, the characters and the temper which produced them.

Significantly, none of the scholarly definitions of "myth" (see above) imply that myths are necessarily false. In a scholarly context, the word "myth" may mean "sacred story", "traditional story", or "story about gods", but it does not mean "false story". Therefore, scholars may speak of "religious mythology" without meaning to insult religion. (For instance, a scholar may call Abrahamic scriptures "myths" without meaning to insult Christianity and Islam. The Christian apologist C. S. Lewis made a clear distinction between myth and falsehood when he referred to the life of Christ as a myth "which is also a fact".)[28] However, this scholarly use of the word "myth" may cause confusion and offense, because of the popular use of "myth" to mean "falsehood".

Many myths, such as ritual myths, are clearly part of religion. However, unless we simply define myths as "sacred stories" (instead defining them as "traditional stories", for instance), not all myths are necessarily religious. As the classicist G. S. Kirk notes, "many myths embody a belief in the supernatural [...] but many other myths, or what seem like myths, do not".[13] As an example, Kirk cites the myth of Oedipus, which is "only superficially associated [...] with religion or the supernatural", and is therefore not a sacred story.[13] (Note that folklorists would not classify the Oedipus story as a myth, precisely because it is not a sacred story.)[29]

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

Wowbagger

13th July 2008, 10:49 PM

My alternative would be pretty boring I concede that, however I think it is dangerous to present things as "facts" when they are creative interpretations of the facts. I don't think they are presented as "facts". I think they are usually presented as "best guesses". Ask a museum curator, some time.

BTW I notice that you referred to my opening post as a rant. I don't agree with your discription. Forget I used the word "rant", then.

Science welcomes criticism and questions so why the taboo about questioning these fields? Who, here, said it was taboo?

I note as well that I was immediately accused of being a closet creationist or a "woo" or whatever.

But my OP was a skeptics question. I am skeptical about the way the stories are presented to the public.

Is this not a skeptic's site? Why the umbrage? For what it's worth, I didn't think you came off like a "woo". To me, it sounded like you were legitimately trying to talk about evolution with some folks, but found the narratives lacking something. I felt a similar way, when I was first learning about this stuff.
I answered the way I did (pointing out that making discoveries is the real power), because of that.

Don't sweat the stories. You can use them to help communicate the science, or not. Just remember they are not meant to be "the final product". They are "best guesses" for the time being.

I don't understand why people get all revved up at the idea of debating a Creationist. To me its childish and betrays a bully attitude of sorts. For some of us, it is kinda fun. At least for a while. ;)

truethat

13th July 2008, 10:56 PM

Do you speak of scientists, or reporters? They are worded like mythology, yes. But I do not think it is those who do the tests that word them so.

Thank you for agreeing that they are worded like mythology. I agree with you that 9 times out of 10 it is the "non scientists" who allow these kinds of things to go through. However it concerns me that scientists don't speak up when they see it happen.

They do speak up very loudly if they feel a Creationist can take their findings and twist them for example the soft tissue in dino bone debate, the scientist involved had to retract her statement that she had found red blood cells in a heartbeat because of the outcry.

So why then do scientists remain curiously silent when TV shows and Museum exhibits aimed at the general public make embellished statements about what science actually knows? And curious why they seem to let embelishment regarding theories that they support slide? That's not good science in my opinion.

I think we have good science in other fields and we should return to form.

D'rok

13th July 2008, 10:58 PM

Why are you even arguing with me if you are agreeing with me? LOL? :words:

Exactly Science belongs in the science classroom and MYTHOLOGY does not. So why are you arguing.

Because I'm not buying your premise that mythology has infected science to any significant degree. Poetic language - i.e. mythological in tone - is not the same as mythology.

Text books for students of evolution are filled with mythology. This is my complaint. The reason people are confused about evolutionary theory is that most people do not understand the distinction between what is embellished and what is not. And science in now way helps this by supporting mythological representations of extinct creatures does it? When you talk about a dinosaurs BEHAVIOR for example, you are pretty much GUESSING because there is no hard scientific evidence to back that up. You can base it on deduction as well but to present that deduction in a statement of fact is flat out lying.You make a number of statements that I disagree with. Deductions are not guesses, nor are they lies. Deductions stated without qualifiers in the form of dinosaur illustrations are perfectly appropriate at some educational level. If you got that picture from a college-level textbook, or even a high-school textbook, I might be inclined to agree with you.

As far as "conflating narrative language with mythology. I think you have a common understanding of mythology. It doesn't mean a "made up story"It means both. I'm no expert, but I have dabbled in the Joseph Campbell approach at university - no need to throw wikipedia at me. I am arguing that what you are referring to as "mythology" in science narratives is not - in either sense of the word.

(BTW: this is a derail, but any assertion that Oedipus (assuming Oedipus Rex here) is not a myth in the "sacred story" sense would get a strong argument from me. Perhaps it could be argued that it is a dramatization of myth-derived morality rather than myth qua myth, but that is a distinction without a difference)

truethat

13th July 2008, 11:03 PM

[QUOTE=Wowbagger;3858668]I don't think they are presented as "facts". I think they are usually presented as "best guesses". Ask a museum curator, some time.

Who, here, said it was taboo?
[QUOTE]

I hope its not taboo, I've tried many times to have this conversation and it usually gets side swept into a creationist debate which drives me nuts as an atheist.

Now, the museum curator is a good point. One of the reasons I noticed this is I realized that my kids were being almost "indoctrinated" into believing everything they were being handed about evolution. At the Natural History Museum in NYC my kids really thought that the dinosaur in the main hall was a "model" based on all the bones. In other words they thought it was put together like a puzzle. When I showed them the photo of the actual bones found they were stunned as was I to see that probably 70 percent of the dinosaur was totally made up. It occurred to me that were I to set this up I would probably have put the actual bones in RED and the additionals in grey to make it very clear what was fact and what was deduction, I'm curious why this isn't done.

Wowbagger

13th July 2008, 11:05 PM

So science is good when its findings support naturalism, science is bad when it brings naturalism into question. Skepticism is good when it is used to defend naturalism, when skepticism questions naturalism it is no longer 'real skepticism'.. and will go by any of dozens of other epithets. Has science ever discovered anything that was not natural?

The TOE is perhaps the central supporting pillar of naturalism (as people here view it). Therefore, to question the TOE is to be trying to bring down the temple upon the faithful. Hence the heated, often irrational, reactions.There is still a chance to bring it down. Show us a theory that is more powerful in generating precise details about life, and I will show you Darwin's shattered remains!

D'rok

13th July 2008, 11:08 PM

Somewhat on topic:

Truethat, have you ever read A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller? That is an example of what Science as myth/religion would look like.

truethat

13th July 2008, 11:11 PM

Because I'm not buying your premise that mythology has infected science to any significant degree. Poetic language - i.e. mythological in tone - is not the same as mythology.

You make a number of statements that I disagree with. Deductions are not guesses, nor are they lies. Deductions stated without qualifiers in the form of dinosaur illustrations are perfectly appropriate at some educational level. If you got that picture from a college-level textbook, or even a high-school textbook, I might be inclined to agree with you.

It means both. I'm no expert, but I have dabbled in the Joseph Campbell approach at university - no need to throw wikipedia at me. I am arguing that what you are referring to as "mythology" in science narratives is not - in either sense of the word.

(BTW: this is a derail, but any assertion that Oedipus (assuming Oedipus Rex here) is not a myth in the "sacred story" sense would get a strong argument from me. Perhaps it could be argued that it is a dramatization of myth-derived morality rather than myth qua myth, but that is a distinction without a difference)

With all due respect I don't believe you really grasp what you are talking about and I would really like to have a conversation about this.

If you go look at any high school text book or college text book depicting dinosaurs you will most certainly see artistic renderings. That's a non issue. For you to make that argument shows me that you haven't bothered to even do a tad bit of research before taking a position. Not good form my friend, especially on a skeptic site.

I didn't say deductions were lies. Boy maybe you should try reading posts twice or even three times before putting words in people's mouths. I said:

You can base it on deduction as well but to present that deduction in a statement of fact is flat out lying.

You will argue that to present a deduction as a statement of fact is not lying?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Frankly it strikes me as you having a bone to grind with creationists and taking it out on my thread with a defensive posture.

I'm not interested in that game! LOL Try to do a bit more research before snapping back in reply.

D'rok

13th July 2008, 11:13 PM

It occurred to me that were I to set this up I would probably have put the actual bones in RED and the additionals in grey to make it very clear what was fact and what was deduction, I'm curious why this isn't done.

My memory is a little fuzzy (it's been many years), but I seem to remember something along these lines at the Royal Tyrrell Museum in Drumheller, Alberta (Canada's best dinosaur museum).

http://www.tyrrellmuseum.com/

There was an educational component alongside the ROAR!! DINOSAURS!! component. In fact, the area where the paleontologists worked was built into the exhibit.

truethat

13th July 2008, 11:14 PM

There is still a chance to bring it down. Show us a theory that is more powerful in generating precise details about life, and I will show you Darwin's shattered remains!

This is the part of this whole thing that gives me pause. If you are considered a traitor for questioning the theory, then how is this possible? How is it possible to explore any other option (and no I don't mean God theories) when society is turning origins theories into the next sacred stories?

truethat

13th July 2008, 11:16 PM

Neat site!

I question why this is not done?

Look at this image from the Royal Tyrrell Exhibit

The average person believes the entire skeleton was excavated

http://www.photoscanada.com/gallery/albums/royal-tyrrell-museum-drumheller/Royal_Tyrrell_Museum_12.jpg

plumjam

13th July 2008, 11:20 PM

Has science ever discovered anything that was not natural?

Well then we'd be off into a big debate about what counts as natural. Whether naturalism at all is possible, seeing as it is founded upon wholly mysterious laws whose origins IMO could not be 'natural'.. etc..
But that would be a big derail from the topic of the thread.

DeusPhasmatis

13th July 2008, 11:28 PM

So why then do scientists remain curiously silent when TV shows and Museum exhibits aimed at the general public make embellished statements about what science actually knows? And curious why they seem to let embelishment regarding theories that they support slide? That's not good science in my opinion.

Because scientists don't have the power to police the world of information. They have neither the time, nor the resources, to correct every mistaken exhibit, every embellished TV show. Neither do they have contacts reach even a small portion of the population. These same scientists are also too busy to release a point-by-point rebuttal of Expelled. I think you're confusing pro-evolution activists with actual scientists.

D'rok

13th July 2008, 11:34 PM

Wow. You are really misreading both the tone and the content of my posts.

With all due respect I don't believe you really grasp what you are talking about and I would really like to have a conversation about this.

I grasp just fine, thanks. I'm sorry that I can't agree with you.

If you go look at any high school text book or college text book depicting dinosaurs you will most certainly see artistic renderings. That's a non issue. For you to make that argument shows me that you haven't bothered to even do a tad bit of research before taking a position. Not good form my friend, especially on a skeptic site.First of all, where did I argue that illustrations would not exist? Here is a refresher:
Deductions are not guesses, nor are they lies. Deductions stated without qualifiers in the form of dinosaur illustrations are perfectly appropriate at some educational level. If you got that picture from a college-level textbook, or even a high-school textbook, I might be inclined to agree with you.
Clearly, I am arguing that a) dinosaur illustrations exist in textbooks; b) that illustrations without qualifiers (or caveats, if you prefer) are appropriate at some educational level and not at others; and c) if you could show me an illustration from a college level (or maybe high-school) science textbook without the appropriate contextual qualifiers, I would concede the point. Jeez.

Secondly, give me a break. Do you really expect me to pop out to the university library in between posts? Let's say I did. For your point to be valid, I would have to find dinosaur illustrations sans any kind of qualifying language re: the anatomy/behaviour, etc. Or, I would have to be so obtuse that I wouldn't immediately grasp the implied qualifications. This is a science textbook, right?

I didn't say deductions were lies. Boy maybe you should try reading posts twice or even three times before putting words in people's mouths. I said:

You can base it on deduction as well but to present that deduction in a statement of fact is flat out lying. Oh come on. I was responding to this particular assertion. How obtuse can you be?

You will argue that to present a deduction as a statement of fact is not lying?In what context? It could be lying. I don't think it is in the scientific context because a) such deductions are (or should be) understood to be provisional in that context; and b) you haven't presented any good evidence that unsupported deductions are foisted onto students by science educators.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Frankly it strikes me as you having a bone to grind with creationists and taking it out on my thread with a defensive posture.

I'm not interested in that game! LOL Try to do a bit more research before snapping back in reply.Like I said, you completely misread my tone. This reply has a snappy tone. I thought we were having a conversation. It seems to me that you are poisoning the well because I am disagreeing with you. So be it.

truethat

13th July 2008, 11:37 PM

Because scientists don't have the power to police the world of information. They have neither the time, nor the resources, to correct every mistaken exhibit, every embellished TV show. Neither do they have contacts reach even a small portion of the population. These same scientists are also too busy to release a point-by-point rebuttal of Expelled. I think you're confusing pro-evolution activists with actual scientists.

That's a common argument but its simply not true. I've done research on this and on nearly every "mythological" narrative regarding these fields, there have been actual scientists totally on board.

An exhibit for example at a Natural History Museum is usually overseen by a scientist and the people involved are scientists. Walking With The Dinosaurs had scientists onboard.

I know people like to present scientists as busy in the lab but the fact is many of them do very much "police" what is presented as science, but the truth is that they only seem to involve themselves in "correction" when a Creationist or ID person is "twisting the facts" when a science related one does it people look the other way.

truethat

13th July 2008, 11:43 PM

Wow. You are really misreading both the tone and the content of my posts.

I grasp just fine, thanks. I'm sorry that I can't agree with you.

First of all, where did I argue that illustrations would not exist? Here is a refresher:

Clearly, I am arguing that a) dinosaur illustrations exist in textbooks; b) that illustrations without qualifiers (or caveats, if you prefer) are appropriate at some educational level and not at others; and c) if you could show me an illustration from a college level (or maybe high-school) science textbook without the appropriate contextual qualifiers, I would concede the point. Jeez.

Secondly, give me a break. Do you really expect me to pop out to the university library in between posts? Let's say I did. For your point to be valid, I would have to find dinosaur illustrations sans any kind of qualifying language re: the anatomy/behaviour, etc. Or, I would have to be so obtuse that I wouldn't immediately grasp the implied qualifications. This is a science textbook, right?

Oh come on. I was responding to this particular assertion. How obtuse can you be?

In what context? It could be lying. I don't think it is in the scientific context because a) such deductions are (or should be) understood to be provisional in that context; and b) you haven't presented any good evidence that unsupported deductions are foisted onto students by science educators.

Like I said, you completely misread my tone. This reply has a snappy tone. I thought we were having a conversation. It seems to me that you are poisoning the well because I am disagreeing with you. So be it.

I don't expect you to pop out, but then you shouldn't be taking a stand so strongly if you aren't sure about what you are saying. That's not good form in a debate, in my opinion anyway. Not to mention that its pretty commonly known that artistic interpretations of dinosaurs are always in text books.

Additionally I'm not poisoning the well to point out that twice you have stated that posters stated something that they did not. Since the words are right there to see, it strikes me as you having a preconceived idea of what the other person believes and instead of actually reading what was written you are putting words in people's mouths by way of debate. Not good form as I said.

I did respond to you after that post when I felt you made a valid claim. But you seem to be flexing your reading list rather than discussing what is actually being said.

truethat

13th July 2008, 11:48 PM

Here's an example of what I mean. It seems that people are assuming I'm talking about skin color and what not of dinosaurs. For example when we depict a giant crocodile it would make sense to deduce that the skin of the creature was similar to the modern ones. Could be that the animal was actually purple but we can't know that so we deduce that its probably an accurate portrayal.

Where an illustration would be "not science" in a serious way, would be more concerning the posture of the animal.

Whether or not the animal was hot blooded or cold blooded is still up for debate. And in this regard it becomes much more significant.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/metabolism.html

D'rok

13th July 2008, 11:50 PM

I don't expect you to pop out, but then you shouldn't be taking a stand so strongly if you aren't sure about what you are saying. That's not good form in a debate, in my opinion anyway. Not to mention that its pretty commonly known that artistic interpretations of dinosaurs are always in text books.

Additionally I'm not poisoning the well to point out that twice you have stated that posters stated something that they did not. Since the words are right there to see, it strikes me as you having a preconceived idea of what the other person believes and instead of actually reading what was written you are putting words in people's mouths by way of debate. Not good form as I said.

I did respond to you after that post when I felt you made a valid claim. But you seem to be flexing your reading list rather than discussing what is actually being said.

Can you not see the irony in those two sentences? You just repeated, for the second time, a claim that I did not make - something that I pointed out in the very post you are quoting, followed by an accusation that I have twice put words in peoples' mouths.

Arghh.

So long.

truethat

13th July 2008, 11:53 PM

So long indeed, I had a feeling that was coming! Its ok I understand that you believe that its OK to use narrative and Evolutionary Art to gussy up the story for public consumption.

I don't agree, I don't believe this is science when you do this.

DeusPhasmatis

13th July 2008, 11:58 PM

DeusPhasmatis

14th July 2008, 12:06 AM

Now, the museum curator is a good point. One of the reasons I noticed this is I realized that my kids were being almost "indoctrinated" into believing everything they were being handed about evolution. At the Natural History Museum in NYC my kids really thought that the dinosaur in the main hall was a "model" based on all the bones. In other words they thought it was put together like a puzzle. When I showed them the photo of the actual bones found they were stunned as was I to see that probably 70 percent of the dinosaur was totally made up. It occurred to me that were I to set this up I would probably have put the actual bones in RED and the additionals in grey to make it very clear what was fact and what was deduction, I'm curious why this isn't done.

Was that "deduction" a unique find? The only set of it's kind?

truethat

14th July 2008, 12:07 AM

that wasn't a narrative language link? It was a link to the significance of hot blooded or cold blooded debate which would then cause a problem regarding the mulitude of depictions of dinosaurs. While we can accept movies like Jurassic Park as being "fantasy" we shouldn't have fantasy depictions in text books. In my opinion.

Here's a link for example, although this debate of hot or cold blooded is still up in the air you will note in this science resource aimed at children it states

http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4770

Devouring Misperceptions

Dinosaurs did not live with humans.

Pterosaurs, the flying reptiles, were not dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs did not live in the water.

Dinosaurs were not cold-blooded.

Dinosaurs did not have pea-sized brains.

Dinosaurs did not drag their tails on the ground.

Most species did not spend the majority of their time killing one another.

Here's an example of Narrative

http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/EvolutionOfLife.shtml#BirthofEarth

Specific example from the page

The emergence of many kinds of creatures during the transition from the Precambrian to the Cambrian radically changed the nature of the relations among animals, including the development of more complex predator-prey relationships.

This is an assumption or deduction regarding behavior. Stated as fact. Using Narrative Language.

That's a very clear example. I hope you see what I mean, I think its pretty easy to understand.

truethat

14th July 2008, 12:24 AM

Was that "deduction" a unique find? The only set of it's kind?

I'm not sure, I'm not saying that they should not use molds, like I said just put in red what is actual and the rest in grey? Why not present it that way.

Now check this out. You'll note that this article about exactly what I am talking about points out that the previous way the animal was displayed is now considered "wrong." To lash back at the dragging of the tail on the group they have jumped the other way and depicted the tail up in the air. But this is just more creative interpretation.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/fossilhalls/vertebrate/specimens/apatosaurus.php

Also the main page of the exhibit is here. You will note that the animal is displayed in an attacking posture.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/fossilhalls/

Here's another depiction of an attacking animal which states that the antelope was prey. Deduction? Not sure?

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/fossilhalls/vertebrate/specimens/amphicyon.php

T rex posture is something that is debated in the scientific communities. I like that they mention these things on the site.
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/fossilhalls/vertebrate/specimens/trex.php

DeusPhasmatis

14th July 2008, 12:34 AM

truethat

14th July 2008, 12:41 AM

Because my child is 8 years old. I do teach my child to think which is why we examined it more closely. I think you are the one placing the blame on the wrong person. You're actually suggesting that a child reading scholastic is supposed to know to question the fact that Dinosaurs are not cold blooded? Its being given to the child by a science source? You're suggesting that children given text books with depictions of dinosaurs should know at a young age to doubt everything they read? Why not just depict the actual facts rather than embelishing it with illustration that might be wrong?

But I do question science. I agree that skepticism is important to develop. But my point from the original post is that Science should not be using this kind of language to discuss science because it is not scientific.

Why is it that this is given a free pass by everyone? That's what I don't understand at all.

Stephen Jay Gould said this about when others do it:

"Evolutionary biology has been severely hampered by a speculative style of argument that records anatomy and ecology and then tries to construct historical or adaptive explanations for why this bone looked like that or why this creature lived here. These speculations have been charitably called "scenarios"; they are often more contemptuously, and rightly, labeled "stories" (or "just-so stories" if they rely on the fallacious assumption that everything exists for a purpose). Scientists know that these tales are stories; unfortunately, they are presented in the professional literature where they are taken too seriously and literally. Then they become "facts" and enter the popular literature, often in such socially dubious form as the ancestral killer ape who absolves us from responsibility for our current nastiness, or as the "innate" male dominance that justifies cultural sexism as the mark of nature."

http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/gould/excerpts/index.html

truethat

14th July 2008, 12:43 AM

Here's something interesting

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/924/85000445.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.dkimages.com/discover/Home/Animals/Mammals/Elephants/Anatomy/Skeletons/Skeletons-1.html&h=712&w=768&sz=117&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=PLAiDRkiedp_VM:&tbnh=132&tbnw=142&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dskeleton%2Bof%2Belephant%2B%26um%3D1% 26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-US%26sa%3DN

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/125/366259191_fd091a3b48.jpg?v=0

Now I wonder if we'd never seen an elephant before if we'd conclude properly that the elephant had a trunk?

arthwollipot

14th July 2008, 12:59 AM

How does using Narrative story telling to explain theories to the public in any way benefit or assist the public in understandign science properly?

All it does is cause confusion. And to the second point I don't agree with putting it in bite size portions and easy to swallow tablets of fiction, just because people will remember it better.

As I understand it, that's religion, not science.Couple of things. First, as someone has already pointed out, the "proper" science behind things is in many cases complicated, and it is mathematical. The general public does not have the mathematical background to grasp the real science that goes on. Here's an experiment. Give someone a random article from Scientific American and a random article from Nature. The former is scientific journalism, while the latter is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Your average person will be much more likely to be able to understand the former than the latter. But it is Nature that contains the real science.

However, there is another reason to use a narrative structure when describing science to non-scientists. Some science is chronological in nature. Evolution for example says that such-and-such a species evolved from so-and-so another species. There's no way you can get away from the narrative structure when you're describing this.

Narrative can be confusing, yes. It can obscure the real science, yes. But it is necessary and unavoidable.

DeusPhasmatis

14th July 2008, 01:10 AM

truethat

14th July 2008, 01:16 AM

:boggled:Couple of things. First, as someone has already pointed out, the "proper" science behind things is in many cases complicated, and it is mathematical. The general public does not have the mathematical background to grasp the real science that goes on. Here's an experiment. Give someone a random article from Scientific American and a random article from Nature. The former is scientific journalism, while the latter is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Your average person will be much more likely to be able to understand the former than the latter. But it is Nature that contains the real science.

However, there is another reason to use a narrative structure when describing science to non-scientists. Some science is chronological in nature. Evolution for example says that such-and-such a species evolved from so-and-so another species. There's no way you can get away from the narrative structure when you're describing this.

Narrative can be confusing, yes. It can obscure the real science, yes. But it is necessary and unavoidable.

Hmm well what I'm seeing in this thread is a sort of double standard. There's the argument that you are making that the average person won't understand the actual science so we need to embelish it to make it interesting.

Then I'm seeing the other argument that we should "trust scientists" to give us "what we need to know" because the average person doesn't understand science.

Now I'm seeing the argument that we should teach people to question everything they are told.

As I stated earlier I believe that using Narrative and mythological language CONFUSES the issue unnecessarily.

How about this instead? Just the facts mam? Instead of all this twisting and turning how about scientists leave the embelishment completely out of it and stick to just presenting the FACTS?

I'm really confused why this is considered a bad idea? LOL

phantomb

14th July 2008, 01:27 AM

truethat

14th July 2008, 01:42 AM

The problem here is that you're confusing a Scholastic book intended for children with a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Professionals in scientific research write their papers on a whole different level than children's book writers for Scholastic. A scientific journal assumes an audience with university level understanding of its specific field, whereas a book intended for children has to assume that its readers will have much less knowledge of the field. The best you can do when writing for children (or for the general population) is to represent the material in a way that the audience will be able to understand and apply to their own lives, which includes the odd embellishment if it makes the material easier to understand.

No I'm not. People keep telling me I'm doing this but I've clearly stated several times that I'm addressing how the information is presented to the public. I understand that science journals are going to be more stuffy but there's no reason to embelish and flat out make things up just to keep the public interested. And then what do scientists gripe about people? That they are vastly ill informed about science.

The scholastic article states that Dinosaurs were not cold blooded. Why put that in there if its not a fact? If its not easily deduced why throw in a false statement? This isn't about using metaphor, this is about exaggerating what you know for the sake of a better story or worse, for the sake of presenting a sense of authority about something not really known.

I think its clear here that science is doing what I'm saying its doing, its clear that its confusing and its clear that its not SCIENCE as science describes itself.

So once again my question is WHY DO IT? Why not just present the facts and reasonable deductions?

Why push it to myth and sacred stories?

What is intersting to me is how willing people are to defend this? And then when criticism is brough up regarding these fields by those confused about it, scientists accuse them of wanting to push their myths into the science classroom.

As I see it, science accepts myths in science classroom as long as scientists are the ones telling the stories.

phantomb

14th July 2008, 02:28 AM

No I'm not. People keep telling me I'm doing this but I've clearly stated several times that I'm addressing how the information is presented to the public. I understand that science journals are going to be more stuffy but there's no reason to embelish and flat out make things up just to keep the public interested. And then what do scientists gripe about people? That they are vastly ill informed about science.

Of course there is reason to dumb down and embellish information to keep the public interested . . . if writers didn't do that, the public wouldn't be interested. It's as simple as that, and research on educational products and entertainment programs show it to be true, especially for children. There's no way that you could present just the facts and expect the average person (god forbid the average child) to remain interested, and to understand and retain the information.
It's all about establishing a basic understanding of current scientific knowledge to be expanded on by serious study later. This may involve some dumbing down and embellishment, but nothing you've posted so far would lead me to believe that anyone is outright making things up as you have claimed.

The scholastic article states that Dinosaurs were not cold blooded. Why put that in there if its not a fact? If its not easily deduced why throw in a false statement? This isn't about using metaphor, this is about exaggerating what you know for the sake of a better story or worse, for the sake of presenting a sense of authority about something not really known.

I think its clear here that science is doing what I'm saying its doing, its clear that its confusing and its clear that its not SCIENCE as science describes itself.

So once again my question is WHY DO IT? Why not just present the facts and reasonable deductions?

Why push it to myth and sacred stories?

What is intersting to me is how willing people are to defend this? And then when criticism is brough up regarding these fields by those confused about it, scientists accuse them of wanting to push their myths into the science classroom.

As I see it, science accepts myths in science classroom as long as scientists are the ones telling the stories.

In a way, your question really belongs in the education section because it is more about the way that science is taught in children's books, museums, etc. than it is about actual science, or even actual scientists.
You claim that scientists are literally knowingly allowing lies into science classrooms, but your specific examples seem pretty weak to me, and at the very least I, personally, have never come across a textbook covering evolution that was as separated from the actual science as the ones you've read seem to be. Perhaps you could give us the name of some science textbooks that you have found with this problem . . .

Kotatsu

14th July 2008, 02:38 AM

The scholastic article states that Dinosaurs were not cold blooded. Why put that in there if its not a fact? If its not easily deduced why throw in a false statement? This isn't about using metaphor, this is about exaggerating what you know for the sake of a better story or worse, for the sake of presenting a sense of authority about something not really known.

So once again my question is WHY DO IT? Why not just present the facts and reasonable deductions?

If the authors of that book feel that the data supporting the idea that dinosaurs were not cold-blooded is strong enough, why shouldn't they say so? Is it entirely impossible that doing so might fall under "reasonable deductions"? Should authors, educators, and scientists, in every thing they write, always mention all proposed hypotheses to explain the data discussed, regardless of how strong they feel the case for one hypothesis is?

As to the actual matter of their warm- or cold-bloodedness, I understand --- based mainly on Fastovsky and Weishampel's "The Evolution and Extinction of Dinosaurs" that evidence vastly favour that the dinosaurs were not cold-blooded; however, neither were they warm-blooded in "conventional mammalian or bird-like" way. Fastovsky and Weishampel reach this conclusion after 30 pages of discussion, including what I expect is the overwhelming majority of lines or evidence in both directions. I understand that while it may be wrong to say that they were warm-blooded in the same way that modern mammals and birds are, it is correct to say that they were not cold-blooded as modern reptiles and amphibians are.

DeusPhasmatis

14th July 2008, 02:46 AM

And then when criticism is brough up regarding these fields by those confused about it, scientists accuse them of wanting to push their myths into the science classroom.

How is one who is confused sufficiently knowledgeable to actually criticize a field? The information is there, the plain facts, in research journals, for anyone to read. If their criticisms are legitimate, then they should be able to factually back them up, once they've informed themselves about the field. A criticism from ignorance is one that can be ignored.

There is no conspiracy of scientists trying to misinform people about evolution. Science is not pushing myth in the classroom. Any curriculum that includes dinosaurs as part of the section on evolution is doing it wrong. Any science class that mentions dinosaurs in more than passing is poorly run. And, quite frankly, I recall no dinosaurs in any of my high school classes.

plumjam

14th July 2008, 03:16 AM

Kotatsu

14th July 2008, 04:02 AM

Possibly the worst example is Haeckel's embryo drawings. They were shown to be fraudulent by his own University in 1874, and Haeckel was censured for it. Yet they have appeared in biology textbooks right up to very recently.
That's only one example. There are more.

Could you perhaps reference some recent textbooks where Haeckel's embryo drawings are used as a point of evidence for evolution having happened? I cannot recall ever having seen that, and looking through the literature I had when I studied biology at university level some years ago, I can't even seem to find these pictures even as examples of bad science; they are simply not included. Even in the literature I used during my thesis, and the books I have collected and read since then, during the course of my Ph.D. in systematics and evolution, these drawings are absent. If they are so vital to evolution as to warrant being dragged up every time someone needs an easy cop-out, why aren't they included in any of the text books I have had as basic literature in courses on evolutionary theory?

---
Note: I have checked the following books:
- Alberts et al., 1998. Essential Cell Biology.
- Boolootian & Stiles, 1976. College Zoology (9th edition)
- Brusca and Brusca, 2003. Invertebrates (2nd edition)
- Chapman & Reiss, 1999. Ecology: Principles and Applications (2nd edition)
- Dowdeswell, 1964. The Mechanisms of Evolution (2nd edition)
- Fastovsky & Weishampel, 2005. The Evolution and Extinction of the Dinosaurs (2nd edition)
- Klug & Cummings, 1993. Essentials of Genetics (4th edition)
- Madigan, Martinko & Parker, 2003. Brock Biology of Microorganisms (10th edition)
- Raven, Evert, Eichhorn, 2003. Biology of Plants (6th edition)
- Schoenwolf, 1995. Laboratory Studies of Vertebrate and Invertebrate Embryos (7th edition)
- Stearns & Hoekstra, 2000. Evolution - an introduction.

I have been constrained in this by being at home on vacation, and thus I have been unable to check the larger body of relevant literature I keep at work. Nevertheless, I have gone trough a four-year university education in biology, followed by a one year master thesis, another year of lab work, seminars, and so on, and now one year of a Ph.D. education, and the only time I have ever seen a printed version of Haeckel's drawings was, I believe, in a copy of Harun Yahya's "Atlas of Creation", which, I must stress, is distinctly not either course literature at my university, nor really science, but sloppy comparison between fossils and present organisms --- organisms, it must be said, that often belong to different phyla from the fossils, implying that the author(s) just took similar things without considering if they were actually related or not. Thus, they cannot be very essential to evolutionary theory, and arguments concerning them can be dismissed as trivial, inconsequential, or untrue, depending on the level of evidence presented for their importance and the spread of their inclusion in text books.

I think a list should be compiled --- if this has not already been done --- of college level text books which cover evolution, if only peripherally, which contain Haeckel's drawings, and a list of those that don't.

e-sabbath

14th July 2008, 04:49 AM

sphenisc

14th July 2008, 04:54 AM

Who is this "public" that people are referring to? Who supposedly need embellishments, stories, and nice colourful illustrations in order to understand evolution.

You could ask the BBC...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worldwidestories/pressreleases/2003/07_july/walking_with_brand.shtml

Dancing David

14th July 2008, 06:10 AM

What's the problem? The problem is that its presented to the public in a way that is mythology presented as science. I like stories too. I love mythology. So why is it if science is going to "have fun" and just tell stories, they get reactionary when someone points out that fun embellished stories aren't science?

I think this practice causes a lot of unnecessary head aches and it should be eliminated if it is to be taken as science.

Well, I am not sure why they used the word 'created' in the example on PBS-NOVA, I know I have heard Austin Dyson and many talk that way.

Some ideas, first off it is part of human conceptualization which will vary from person to person. maybe the person who made that statement actualy beleives that the universe did not exist prior to the BBE, which in some interpretation is quite accurate, so just as when a high energy collision 'creates' partciles, they may be using slippery language in that sense. Word useage is vey idiosyncratic a,d self determined.

Second i would say that it is part of associative conditioning that humans tend to anthropomorphize all sorts of experience and that it is just part of what humans are.

Third, script writers, the turn of an allusion or metaphor just appeals to people.

Now in the Neanderthal example; that is a weird one. There sure is a lot of data that would suggest that humans and protohumans wander far and wide in the ancient world, trade goods travel huge distances and all that. So perhaps the questions is more about assumpstion, why would you assume that a Neanderthal didn't travel more than 20km?

Delvo

14th July 2008, 07:28 AM

The complaint seems to be that certain words and phrases indicating a level of speculativity are missing, so that once a scientist comes up with the idea that widgets lead to fubosh, (s)he reports it to others later as "Widgets lead to fubosh!" instead of "My theory is that widgets lead to fubosh" or "It seems to me that widgets lead to fubosh" or "Widgets apparently lead to fubosh".

That might not be strictly scientific, but it's certainly not religious or a claim of sacredness either, so if you want to be taken seriously, you should dispense with the use of what you surely must know are bound to be received, in this audience, as invectives and reminiscent of Creationist speech.

Anyway, the reason it's done seems clear to me: verbal efficiency. There's no sense (at least in the mind of the speaker) in adding more words to every single sentence when the information they convey (that the contents of an essay are theories) was already stated once in the title or first paragraph or wherever and/or is inherently implied anyway by the context (scientists discussing science). There is a problem if the audience doesn't understand that it's implied or doesn't understand that the "this is a theory" disclaimer found in the first paragraph applies to the whole essay, but few people in any field ever stop and think about how much stuff that they know and take naturally could be completely foreign to their audiences, and, particularly if the whole essay is presented as a theory in the first place by the title or introduction, the audience arguably has some responsibility themselves to apply that disclaimer to the rest of it as well. And the alternative is to have them drag through the extra "we don't really know" stuff over and over again even after it's already been said once or implied by context, which not only makes the text longer (whether read or spoken) and the structure more complex and potentially confusing, but also can lead some people to get the impression that it's all just baseless guesswork because the uncertainty was stated so much that it became overstated.

It's a simple matter of compromise in communication: go too far one way and you create one communicative problem; go to far the other way and you create a different communicative problem. A common solution in science news articles is to use "it seems to be" instead of "it is" in the first sentence of a paragraph but not the rest of the same paragraph, and then do it again at the beginning of the next one. That way, each paragraph's other sentences embellish on why it seems so or what the implications of it seeming so are. Argue if you want to that this is repeating the disclaimers too frequently once they've already been given once, or too seldom because the disclaimers don't strictly carry over enough, but either way, you're arguing a case in communication theory, not a tendency for scientists to try to impose their theories as religion.

truethat

14th July 2008, 08:36 AM

OK let me get this straight. So far the answers have been that its OK to dumb down science because people are too stupid to understand the truth. And they need interesting stories to keep them involved.

Not understanding any of the logic here.

And now Delvo is saying that because I am pointing out where in my opinion these fields use Narrative Language and pull science into mythology, I should be careful because "if you want to be taken seriously, you should dispense with the use of what you surely must know are bound to be received, in this audience, as invectives and reminiscent of Creationist speech."

Could you take that same quote and apply it to science in these fields and then you will understand what I am saying precisely to Evolutionary Science and Origins Theories and Big Bang Theories:

"if you want to be taken seriously, you should dispense with the use of what you surely must know are bound to be received, in this audience, as invectives and reminiscent of Creationist speech."

As I have stated from the beginning my argument is based on the way the information is communicated to the public. Thus I do have an issue with the "communuication" why the confusion here?

I'm sorry but the replies I'm getting are pretty weird in my opinion. I can't believe a skeptic would argue that its ok to misrepresent the truth because it makes a better story and the public can't handle it.

Sounds a little like this to me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4VcBmeo

Wowbagger

14th July 2008, 08:43 AM

Well then we'd be off into a big debate about what counts as natural. Whether naturalism at all is possible, seeing as it is founded upon wholly mysterious laws whose origins IMO could not be 'natural'.. etc..
But that would be a big derail from the topic of the thread. Or, maybe the answer to my question is "no".
But, in science, independently verifiable information is important. If something is very verifiable, it does not even matter how you define "natural", the information is still considered fact.

Of course, there are other properties good scientific ideas should hold: testability, falsifiable, independent of subjective interpretation, predictive, etc. But, those have nothing much to do with naturalness.

This is the part of this whole thing that gives me pause. If you are considered a traitor for questioning the theory, then how is this possible? How is it possible to explore any other option (and no I don't mean God theories) when society is turning origins theories into the next sacred stories?No one would be considered a traitor, if the replacement theory they are promoting was more powerful and useful in making new discoveries. It could happen. But, so far, the Theory of Evolution is the best we got.

Even some Forum members sometimes forget that science does not make Ultimate Truths, it builds provisional models. Everything is subject to change based on new discoveries.

Now I wonder if we'd never seen an elephant before if we'd conclude properly that the elephant had a trunk? It might take a while, but there would be clues unraveled as to why the big hole in the middle. Why the particular structure? What evidence can we uncover as to how they manipulated their environment.
It would be difficult, and some first guesses might be completely wrong, but not impossible to figure out.

So long indeed, I had a feeling that was coming! Its ok I understand that you believe that its OK to use narrative and Evolutionary Art to gussy up the story for public consumption.

I don't agree, I don't believe this is science when you do this. You said your alternative would be boring. I do not think museums would want to be boring. Though, they should not step into pure fantasy, either.
I think a nice compromise: "Build it according to our best guesses, and revise it if we must, later"; is not so bad.

You can still disagree, but for some reason, I do not see too many professional scientists, (whose reputations would be more at stake), complaining about it.

Foster Zygote

14th July 2008, 09:22 AM

Could you perhaps reference some recent textbooks where Haeckel's embryo drawings are used as a point of evidence for evolution having happened?

It certainly adds a bit of irony to Plumjam's use of quotation marks in the referent paragraph.

truethat

14th July 2008, 09:23 AM

Well actually my museums would be boring compared to the jazzed up versions of Museums today but the point is, if science is about "science" then why does the community keep mum when total fabrications are made out of their findings?

Additionally I know why they won't agree to put up a sign that says

"Build it according to our best guesses, and revise it if we must, later";

Because we all know that Creationists would have a field day with that. See the problem to me is that these fields have actually allowed bugaboo God theory to actually influence the science, to the degree that I feel we can't really trust what is being presented to us because quite often, statements like the one you just mentioned, are held back for fear of fueling those skeptical about evolutionary theory as it is presented to the public.

Interestingly that's the very opposite of true science in my opinion and is mythical and sacred story telling.

Thanks for your feed back, I appreciate all your posts.

truethat

14th July 2008, 09:27 AM

You could ask the BBC...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worldwidestories/pressreleases/2003/07_july/walking_with_brand.shtml

You posted this link without saying much. It comes across to me as you suggesting that the public wants what the public wants and there is science to give it to them.

Is that what you meant? Because if you've seen that documentary you will note ( I linked to it earlier from you tube) that these "documentaries" are pretty much science fiction.

You can not know how dinosaurs behaved in mating rituals from dinosaur bones.

paximperium

14th July 2008, 09:31 AM

Who is this "public" that people are referring to? Who supposedly need embellishments, stories, and nice colourful illustrations in order to understand evolution.
In my book that would include most people on this forum. (In fact anyone who is not a professional in the biological sciences or paleontology - so that would include all other scientists.)
Truethat is correct that a double standard is operating here. And a pretty patronising one too.

A more serious point is that not only are narrative, embellishment and imagination being used, but also "facts" and "evidence" well known to be wrong still appear in some biological text books decades after being demonstrated so.
Possibly the worst example is Haeckel's embryo drawings. They were shown to be fraudulent by his own University in 1874, and Haeckel was censured for it. Yet they have appeared in biology textbooks right up to very recently.
That's only one example. There are more.

Why would it be that something known to be false could appear in new textbooks for well over a century?
I don't think it's a conspiracy. It seems to me more a pure lack of good supporting evidence for the theory. I mean, they have to put something in.

Anyone interested in this, and with 3 hours to spare, can watch Kent Hovind exploring it. Lies in the Textbooks:
http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=lies+in+the+textbooks&hl=en&sitesearch=#

Plumjam:
You have to answer for your dishonesty in prior posts. You don't get to hide low for a few days and then start lying all over again.

Plumjam, I'm still demanding that you answer for you lies in this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3840994&postcount=170
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?

Your examples are inherently Creationist propaganda. Haeckel's Embryo was a fraud...so? It was never a foundational support for evolution to begin with and was discredited by other scientists. So was the Piltdownman and a host of others as well. One fraud does not mean it is all a fraud.

Using one a few out of date or terribly written textbooks as examples is downright a sad display....how does that discredit evolution? Please give me a list of CURRENT books used, not out of date textbooks still being used in schools that still have Haeckel's hypothesis stated as fact.

BTW: You have yet to answer a simple question as well:
1)Please propose a valid alternative hypothesis to the Theory of Evolution that is falsifiable and consistent with the current evidence.
2)Why does Hovind refuse to accept any of evidence that contradict his beliefs?
3)Name one, just one critique of evolution that you consider "good". Pick the best he has to offer.
4)Please provide evidence that DNA is a language
5)By what mechanism, prevents "micro"evolutionary change from become "macro" over time?
6)Why does Punctuated Equilibrium cannot be accounted for by natural selection and mutation?

truethat

14th July 2008, 09:37 AM

The Story of the Water Cycle. As told by NASA.
http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/droplet.html

Note that, like the Scholastic book, it is written for young children. I think this may be a hint, here. Possibly that young children learn better from stories than when things are taught abstractly?

Thanks for that. You make a very good point that its aimed at young children but the Nova special I pointed out in the first example I gave is aimed at the general public.

I often watch shows on television that use the same kind of narrative language and while its interesting its certainly not accurate.

Right now in the classrooms we have a huge push from Creationists and IDers to change the way evolution is presented in the classrooms. I believe that using Narrative contributes to this problem.

That's my point, its not that I'm saying Narrative is "Wrong" but I do think it can be wrong if it causes confusion. And in this case huge amounts of information are directed at the general public.

One of the reasons religious people irk me is that I feel that they are basically trying to brain wash kids in order to indoctrinate them at a very young age to "accept the story."

I've been getting the same vibe from these fields of science as of later and its disconcerting. The defense on this, on a site that claims to be a skeptics site, is even more disconcerting to me.

Also can we please not derail this discussion into a Creationists war? I note that when pushed to the wall in facing the facts regarding my points quite often people will change the topic to that of Creationism which I'm not interested in, in the slightests.

Lets just agree that Creationism is a made up story and call it a day.

Now back to Science. Please!

paximperium

14th July 2008, 09:38 AM

You posted this link without saying much. It comes across to me as you suggesting that the public wants what the public wants and there is science to give it to them.

Is that what you meant? Because if you've seen that documentary you will note ( I linked to it earlier from you tube) that these "documentaries" are pretty much science fiction.

You can not know how dinosaurs behaved in mating rituals from dinosaur bones.
I agree with you there. Many of these jazzed up documentaries are nothing more than science fiction. Many are based on conjecture on current animals, not on the creatures that existed back then.

However, I still don't see your point.

Narrative Language used to popularize science is just that, to popularize science. In many ways it tends to simplify and introduce base concepts to the masses. In this way, if they were interested they can always learn more.

This does not water down the science itself which is always available.

Wowbagger

14th July 2008, 09:39 AM

Additionally I know why they won't agree to put up a sign that says

"Build it according to our best guesses, and revise it if we must, later";

Because we all know that Creationists would have a field day with that. I don't think museums would care what Creationists think. Let them have their "field day". They still can't come up with anything better, yet!

I think the reason is because everything in the museum would need a sign like that. And, then the museum would seem to be nothing but signs that say "this is our best guess..."

I think a single sign, in the entrance of the museum, disclaiming that everything in it is a "best guess", would not be a bad compromise.

Let's start asking some curators for their opinions!

paximperium

14th July 2008, 09:42 AM

Thanks for that. You make a very good point that its aimed at young children but the Nova special I pointed out in the first example I gave is aimed at the general public.

I often watch shows on television that use the same kind of narrative language and while its interesting its certainly not accurate.

Right now in the classrooms we have a huge push from Creationists and IDers to change the way evolution is presented in the classrooms. I believe that using Narrative contributes to this problem.

That's my point, its not that I'm saying Narrative is "Wrong" but I do think it can be wrong if it causes confusion. And in this case huge amounts of information are directed at the general public.

One of the reasons religious people irk me is that I feel that they are basically trying to brain wash kids in order to indoctrinate them at a very young age to "accept the story."

I've been getting the same vibe from these fields of science as of later and its disconcerting. The defense on this, on a site that claims to be a skeptics site, is even more disconcerting to me.

I'm just trying to figure out. Are you arguing that simplification and narrative makes it indoctrination?
Well, if it was taught in schools via just rote learning than yes, it is indoctrination. Unfortunately not many schools teach proper skepticism and reason based thinking.

All I can hope for most schools to do is to introduce kids to the basic concepts and then if they are interested, to really learn and question it in college.

truethat

14th July 2008, 09:51 AM

I'm just trying to figure out. Are you arguing that simplification and narrative makes it indoctrination?
Well, if it was taught in schools via just rote learning than yes, it is indoctrination. Unfortunately not many schools teach proper skepticism and reason based thinking.

All I can hope for most schools to do is to introduce kids to the basic concepts and then if they are interested, to really learn and question it in college.

Actually my personal opinion is that too much information is presented to kids and when it comes to evolution its all over the map.

What I think science should focus on in schools is teaching scientific method, set up a very strong foundation with kids to teach them critical thinking, skepticism and the way science works.

Then kids will be prepared for life with science. Teaching cute stories is just silly to me. I have three kids and they do not remember the narrative stories when it comes to science. I find that argument to be erroneous. My kids and the kids of my friends usually retain what is interesting information not what is interesting stories.

For example explanations of how things work. I was a science teacher for Mad Science for a while and I can only go by the feedback of what kids were interested in and retained. They liked being able to see it themselves in their own experiences.

Kids were interested in observation and experimentation. Kids were interested in asking a question and then finding the answer.

I don't see this "keeping interest" in using "stories" to keep the crowd, while that works it doesn't seem to do anything more than confuse children as to what is true. Its unnecessary. While it does work to some degree I wonder what we can really deduce from that?

The Hall of Science in NYC is aimed at kids and experimentation is just as interesting to them as dinosaur dioramas? So why not just leave the fluff out of it?

paximperium

14th July 2008, 10:06 AM

Actually my personal opinion is that too much information is presented to kids and when it comes to evolution its all over the map.

I agree. Basic concepts such as DNA, genetics, natural selection, common descent and few others are enough. Enough to recognize it and understand the basics even if they don't go to college. They really don't need to learn everything at their stage.

What I think science should focus on in schools is teaching scientific method, set up a very strong foundation with kids to teach them critical thinking, skepticism and the way science works.
I completely agree.

Then kids will be prepared for life with science. Teaching cute stories is just silly to me. I have three kids and they do not remember the narrative stories when it comes to science. I find that argument to be erroneous. My kids and the kids of my friends usually retain what is interesting information not what is interesting stories.
Well, I'm trying to figure out what you mean by cute stories...when does simplified explanations become "cute stories".

Civilized Worm

14th July 2008, 10:48 AM

I see plumjam has found a new evolution thread to troll after running out of the last one when confronted with questions he refused to answer.

So science is good when its findings support naturalism, science is bad when it brings naturalism into question.

And when has that ever happened?

phantomb

14th July 2008, 10:52 AM

Who is this "public" that people are referring to? Who supposedly need embellishments, stories, and nice colourful illustrations in order to understand evolution.

This is the same public who is described in the Bible as needing parables instead of just the lesson, and who today need well spoken preachers and evangelists instead of just the Bible. Breaking down your findings/beliefs to a simple form that everyone can understand and immediately apply to their lives is necessary, and almost everyone who teaches anything learns to do it.

And truethat, if you're really asking why this is necessary in education, then as I said above, you would probably find more answers in the education topic section. If you still insist that it is the scientists, not the writers in the media, who are responsible for the use of embellishment and best-guessing, then please take me up on my offer and give us the name of a specific textbook, interview, etc. in which a fully educated research scientist has included "total fabrications".

drkitten

14th July 2008, 11:17 AM

Well, I'm trying to figure out what you mean by cute stories...when does simplified explanations become "cute stories".

I'm wondering how any description of a process can be made that isn't a narrative.

Here's an example -- and a reasonable scientifically accurate one:

A butterfly lays an egg, which hatches into a caterpillar. The caterpillar spins a cocoon and
then turns into a butterfly, which leaves the cocoon, mates with another butterfly, and lays
more eggs.

Is that a narrative? I think so. Is it "scientific"? I think so.

How -- for those of you who object to "narrative" --- would you describe the life-cycle of a butterfly?

DeusPhasmatis

14th July 2008, 11:29 AM

Now back to Science. Please!

Except, again, this is not about the Science. Scientists have neither the influence, time, or resources to police other entities. It's not scientists who kept ID out of classrooms; it's lawyers and angry parents.

Teachers use narratives in all fields in the classroom because young children do not understand straight facts. What they teach is wrote memorization, because that is what the curriculum is. Your problem there is with education administration, for teaching the wrong things in the wrong way. Not science.

Commercial entities (museums, television stations, newspapers, book companies) sell things. Narratives are simply more entertaining and sell better. Your problem here is with Capitalism and it's appeal to unrestrained greed. Not science.

plumjam

14th July 2008, 12:30 PM

Plumjam:
You have to answer for your dishonesty in prior posts. You don't get to hide low for a few days and then start lying all over again.

Plumjam, I'm still demanding that you answer for you lies in this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3840994&postcount=170
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?

Your examples are inherently Creationist propaganda. Haeckel's Embryo was a fraud...so? It was never a foundational support for evolution to begin with and was discredited by other scientists. So was the Piltdownman and a host of others as well. One fraud does not mean it is all a fraud.

Using one a few out of date or terribly written textbooks as examples is downright a sad display....how does that discredit evolution? Please give me a list of CURRENT books used, not out of date textbooks still being used in schools that still have Haeckel's hypothesis stated as fact.

BTW: You have yet to answer a simple question as well:
1)Please propose a valid alternative hypothesis to the Theory of Evolution that is falsifiable and consistent with the current evidence.
2)Why does Hovind refuse to accept any of evidence that contradict his beliefs?
3)Name one, just one critique of evolution that you consider "good". Pick the best he has to offer.
4)Please provide evidence that DNA is a language
5)By what mechanism, prevents "micro"evolutionary change from become "macro" over time?
6)Why does Punctuated Equilibrium cannot be accounted for by natural selection and mutation?

*yawn* .. I see I have another little stalker

paximperium

14th July 2008, 12:41 PM

*yawn* .. I see I have another little stalker
Stalking? Man, do you have an ego. Is this thread your alone?
Nope, just a garbage man. Just keeping this thread on topic and taking out your garbage.

Just curious. Do you actually believe that anyone takes you seriously?
Not only are you infamous as a Dishonest Creationist, your arguments are ripoffs from Creationist websites that have been debunked decades ago.

I could understand if you're actually attempting to practice your debating skills against the evil skeptics but your arguments have not changed and are just old rehashes or old debunked Creationist garbage.

Back on topic,
while you're at it, please list any current textbooks still using Haeckel's Embryo as valid evidence for evolution.

Civilized Worm

14th July 2008, 12:54 PM

He only follows you because you ran away from his questions last time, just like you ran away from MattusMaximus before that.

cyborg

14th July 2008, 01:07 PM

Additionally the discoveries themselves stand for themselves. I agree with you there. So then why embelish? Why add to the "story" of the facts instead of just presenting what we do know?

Because it's easier to explain complex scientific ideas to laymen through narratives rather than lengthy tables of data, mathematical formulae and a "well, ain't it obvious what all this means?" conclusions?

paximperium

14th July 2008, 01:16 PM

Because it's easier to explain complex scientific ideas to laymen through narratives rather than lengthy tables of data, mathematical formulae and a "well, ain't it obvious what all this means?" conclusions?

That's a good point. This is a reason why in scientific papers(medical ones anyway), there is an introduction that sets the narrative, history and context of the scientific question; the details of the study and finishes with a conclusion.

This is also true for scientific review papers that reviews the current up to date papers and gives a reasoning for its conclusion.

In all these situations, while the narrative can be simplistic and even bias at times, the data(science) is available if you read it.

plumjam

14th July 2008, 01:19 PM

He only follows you because you ran away from his questions last time, just like you ran away from MattusMaximus before that.

That last thread was an interesting discussion. Pax added to it by presenting numbered lists of (sometimes off-topic) demands he wanted me to fulfill. That is not discussion in my book.
If that is what a person is "contributing" (i.e. contributing nothing and demanding everything), then I have no qualms about ignoring it. I told Pax this at the time. Yet he follows me around the forum with the same list. That counts as pretty strange behaviour, to me... and I won't be encouraging him by responding at any length.
Mattus became very angry and pretty unpleasant. He initially went slightly nuts at my pretty uncontroversial point that I use human intuition to judge the sincerity and genuineness of other humans. He subsequently went even more nuts on other stuff related to evolution. I warned him about this twice, yet he just got worse. So I explained to him why I would not be continuing.
I reserve the right not to waste my time and effort on people who are just going to get increasingly irate, hectoring, and unpleasant. Nothing is being achieved, and it's not doing them any good either.
I left the other thread when it ceased to be interesting. That's what I do, and I expect you do the same.
Otherwise threads would just go on forever. DOC chooses to carry on like that, that's his prerogative; I prefer to move on when I feel the point of diminishing returns has been crossed.

This thread by Truethat is interesting, and he's making his case very well.
Sorry for the derail. Carry on, Sergeant.

ETA: for those who question my claim that the fraudulent Haeckel "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" argument has been used in recent textbooks, well over a century after being shown to be false, there is a list of ten examples, plus analyses here:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3935&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science#text4

paximperium

14th July 2008, 01:31 PM

That last thread was an interesting discussion. Pax added to it by presenting numbered lists of (sometimes off-topic) demands he wanted me to fulfill. That is not discussion in my book.
<Snip>

The list is a list of questions that you have purposefully not answered. You make some grand claim or lie and then refuse to answer when called to task. I've just started another list for this thread:
1)Please list any current textbooks still using Haeckel's Embryo as valid evidence for evolution.

This thread by Truethat is interesting, and he's making his case very well.
Sorry for the derail. Carry on, Sergeant.
You don't get his argument do you? He isn't criticizing evolution. He doesn't have seem to have an issue with any of the evidence or science in it at all. He has a valid argument as to how its being taught and popularized to the public.

BTW: Plumjam, next time someone is doing well in an argument, by publicly supporting them you actually derail their argument with your terrible and dishonest statements.

Civilized Worm

14th July 2008, 01:51 PM

[derail]
That last thread was an interesting discussion. Pax added to it by presenting numbered lists of (sometimes off-topic) demands he wanted me to fulfill. That is not discussion in my book.

Which of those questions were off top? They were all asking you to elaborate on claims YOU made. Does your definition of discussion mean that plumjam gets to say what he likes and not expect to be called on it?

If that is what a person is "contributing" (i.e. contributing nothing and demanding everything), then I have no qualms about ignoring it. I told Pax this at the time. Yet he follows me around the forum with the same list. That counts as pretty strange behaviour, to me... and I won't be encouraging him by responding at any length.

You're encouraging him by refusing to answer his questions, if you had answered them in the first place he wouldn't have a problem.

Mattus became very angry and pretty unpleasant. He initially went slightly nuts at my pretty uncontroversial point that I use human intuition to judge the sincerity and genuineness of other humans. He subsequently went even more nuts on other stuff related to evolution. I warned him about this twice, yet he just got worse. So I explained to him why I would not be continuing.

Any chance we could have links to the posts demonstrating this alleged behaviour?

I reserve the right not to waste my time and effort on people who are just going to get increasingly irate, hectoring, and unpleasant. Nothing is being achieved, and it's not doing them any good either.

No one would be getting irate or hectoring you if you responded to them properly in the first place instead of avoiding them or winding them up.

I left the other thread when it ceased to be interesting. That's what I do, and I expect you do the same.

I try not to leave threads where my presense is still desired there for whatever reason.

This thread by Truethat is interesting, and he's making his case very well.
Sorry for the derail. Carry on, Sergeant.

Funny how you didn't apologise or even qualify the derail when you brought up your tired old creationist BS earlier in the thread.

plumjam

14th July 2008, 02:09 PM

I try not to leave threads where my presense is still desired there for whatever reason.

That's easy for you to do, because you're on the side of naturalist orthodoxy. When, like me, you're on the other side you get a great many more responses. Often it is just not possible to answer everyone. Also, if I were to stay in some threads they'd just be never-ending. I have to make the decision to stop contributing at some point.
Usually this is followed by people trying to convince each other that they have therefore "won", sprinkled with the odd ad hominem. It's funny to watch, partly due to its high degree of predictability. High school stuff, really. :D

Civilized Worm

14th July 2008, 02:16 PM

That's easy for you to do, because you're on the side of naturalist orthodoxy. When, like me, you're on the other side you get a great many more responses. Often it is just not possible to answer everyone. Also, if I were to stay in some threads they'd just be never-ending. I have to make the decision to stop contributing at some point.
Usually this is followed by people trying to convince each other that they have therefore "won", sprinkled with the odd ad hominem. It's funny to watch. High school stuff, really. :D

What do you expect to happen when you come to a sceptical message board and spout creationist BS? Yes of course a lot of people are going to have a problem with that, nature of the beast. If I were to go to a creationist message board I would expect the same response.

Anyway, it's not just about you dodging questions people have asked out of the blue, it's about you dodging question specifically addressing points you have raised. Don't raise such points if you aren't prepared to elaborate on them.

Hokulele

14th July 2008, 02:20 PM

I'm wondering how any description of a process can be made that isn't a narrative.

Here's an example -- and a reasonable scientifically accurate one:

A butterfly lays an egg, which hatches into a caterpillar. The caterpillar spins a cocoon and
then turns into a butterfly, which leaves the cocoon, mates with another butterfly, and lays
more eggs.

Is that a narrative? I think so. Is it "scientific"? I think so.

How -- for those of you who object to "narrative" --- would you describe the life-cycle of a butterfly?

I am wondering how any process can be described without using narrative, scientific or not. How would describe the passage, enactment, and enforcement of laws in the USA without a narrative? How about the role of a federal reserve bank? The process of making a moral judgement? I do not see how the use of narrative language in these cases is fair, but is unfair when describing scientific principles.

truethat

14th July 2008, 02:24 PM

Except, again, this is not about the Science. Scientists have neither the influence, time, or resources to police other entities. It's not scientists who kept ID out of classrooms; it's lawyers and angry parents.

Teachers use narratives in all fields in the classroom because young children do not understand straight facts. What they teach is wrote memorization, because that is what the curriculum is. Your problem there is with education administration, for teaching the wrong things in the wrong way. Not science.

Commercial entities (museums, television stations, newspapers, book companies) sell things. Narratives are simply more entertaining and sell better. Your problem here is with Capitalism and it's appeal to unrestrained greed. Not science.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with you. Scientists most certainly DO strive to keep ID out of the classroom. Its so rudimentary to understand that its hardly requires "proof" but here's just one blurb about it.

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id.shtml

What I notice is that Science DOES intervene when they see religious mythology entering the science classroom but looks the other way when science mythology and Evolutionary Art is passed off as "deduction" I take issue with the silence from the science community regarding these things.

Without sounding too extreme it makes me distrustful of the community the same way Arab Muslims's silence regarding terrorism makes me wonder if they actually agree with the way its being handled.

Why is it Science speaks up LOUD and CLEAR when its IDers that are "twisting science to suit the story" but when Science itself does it we get all these sorta tyranny types of answers "People are too stupid to be told the actual truth, they need something to make it easier to take!"

I mean seriously that sounds just like mythology to me????

Also I know its popular for people to get into rag tag bands of pirate fights on these boards whenever a rogue creationist sticks his head in the door. Let me just say PLEASE take it outside boys. I'm not a supporter of Creationism, none of my arguments has anything to DO with Creationism which is in my opinion a fools paradise.

Please stick with the topic at hand which I stand corrected is not Science but Education in these fields and how it is presented to the public.

truethat

14th July 2008, 02:30 PM

I am wondering how any process can be described without using narrative, scientific or not. How would describe the passage, enactment, and enforcement of laws in the USA without a narrative? How about the role of a federal reserve bank? The process of making a moral judgement? I do not see how the use of narrative language in these cases is fair, but is unfair when describing scientific principles.

You would use expository language rather than narrative. Narrative has a point, to tell a STORY. You don't need to tell a story to explain how something works. I've posted quite a few examples but I see that people are still confused. Its a fine line but easy to say.

Exposition doesn't have to be dry and boring.

http://www.k-state.edu/english/baker/english320/cc-exposition.htm

truethat

14th July 2008, 02:46 PM

I'm wondering how any description of a process can be made that isn't a narrative.

Here's an example -- and a reasonable scientifically accurate one:

A butterfly lays an egg, which hatches into a caterpillar. The caterpillar spins a cocoon and
then turns into a butterfly, which leaves the cocoon, mates with another butterfly, and lays
more eggs.

Is that a narrative? I think so. Is it "scientific"? I think so.

How -- for those of you who object to "narrative" --- would you describe the life-cycle of a butterfly?

That's exposition and that would be fine with me. You see you CAN explain it using exposition.

http://www.hhmi.org/coolscience/butterfly/index.html

^^^^^^^ exposition

Narrative
http://education.sdsc.edu/download/enrich/butterflybook.pdf

Note the use of "magical" as a term and the way the butterfly's motivations are slightly anthromorphosized.

There are better examples I am sure but I am painting and need to get back to work.

Roboramma

14th July 2008, 03:09 PM

I'm sorry but I don't agree with you. Scientists most certainly DO strive to keep ID out of the classroom. Its so rudimentary to understand that its hardly requires "proof" but here's just one blurb about it.

http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id.shtml
He didn't say that some scientists don't strive to keep ID out of the classroom - only that they aren't the driving force for why doing so has been successful. He said:
It's not scientists who kept ID out of classrooms; it's lawyers and angry parents.
In other words, what was achieved was acheived mainly by lawyers and angry parents. That scientists were involved doesn't suggest that they were the primary movers of what happened.
I don't know that he's correct, but showing that scientists do speak out against ID doesn't address his point.

What I notice is that Science DOES intervene when they see religious mythology entering the science classroom but looks the other way when science mythology and Evolutionary Art is passed off as "deduction" I take issue with the silence from the science community regarding these things. I don't know that that's true. Scientists definitely speak out when they see things erroneously being presented as science. That not as many have been outraged by the things you're refering to as were outraged by Intelligent Design has something to do, I think, with the fact that Intelligent Design is far more outrageous - both in the sense of being blatently false, but also in the sense of being dangerous, and thus worthy of provoking outrage.

To say "Dinosaurs were not cold blooded" is far less wrong (and I'm not even convinced it's wrong, considering Kotatsu's post) than saying, "the bacterial flagellum was specifically designed by an intelligent creator". Of course it provokes greater outrage - it should.

Without sounding too extreme it makes me distrustful of the community the same way Arab Muslims's silence regarding terrorism makes me wonder if they actually agree with the way its being handled. The other possibility is that it isn't as big of a deal as the other things that are also happening. For instance, there are plenty of people who go out of their way to obscure and deny the science behind global warming - something that climate scientists are validly outraged by, far more than someone teaching children that dinosaurs are cold blooded, for instance.

Why is it Science speaks up LOUD and CLEAR when its IDers that are "twisting science to suit the story" but when Science itself does it we get all these sorta tyranny types of answers "People are too stupid to be told the actual truth, they need something to make it easier to take!"[quote] Well, I disagree with the idea that people are too stupid to be told the actual truth, as you say. Feynman made a good point when he said:
[quote=Richard Feynman, The Meaning of it All]But when it comes to science they pat me on the head and explain to dopey me that the dopey people aren't going to understand it because he, dope, can't understand it. But I know that some people can understand it. Not everybody who reads the newspaper has to understand every article in the newspaper. Some people aren't interested in science. Some are. At least they could find out what it's all about, instead of discovering that an atomic bullet was used that came out of a machine that weighed seven tons. I can't read the articles in the paper. I don't know what they mean. I don't know what kind of machine it was just because it weighed seven tons. And there are now sixty-two kinds of particles, and I'd like to know what atomic bullet he is referring to.
I agree with what he says - people aren't stupid, they should have science explained to them, clearly, but accurately. On this not only do I agree with you, but I think to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. The question is how can we best do so, given the resources that we have. Some questions are very complex and do need to be simplified in teaching- the problem is doing so without misleading, and I think it's a problem that can be overcome but it's not necessarily easy.

On the other hand, here's a scientist talking about exactly the issue that you say they never speak about.
Moreover, look at the example he gives - it has nothing to do with narratives, it regards just throwing out facts without putting them in their proper context. Actually, I think that's what narrative does - it gives us facts and information, but it also includes a context, a way of interpretting those facts to give understanding.

If you look at DrKitten's butterfly example, take out all of the narrative elements, so that:
A butterfly lays an egg, which hatches into a caterpillar. The caterpillar spins a cocoon and then turns into a butterfly, which leaves the cocoon, mates with another butterfly, and lays more eggs.
Becomes:
-Caterpillars become butterflies.
-Butterflies lay eggs.
-Caterpillars spin cocoons.
-Butterflies mate with butterflies.
-Caterpillars leave cocoons.
What are you left with? A bunch of facts, but no understanding of what they mean. The only way to arrive at that meaning is to reconstruct the narrative.

If you think that's unfair, I'd really like to see you respond to drkitten's post in a way that you think is as accurate, and as good at revealing real science as the narrative that she presented.

I mean seriously that sounds just like mythology to me????
Maybe, but if it is mythology, it's accurate mythology, and I don't see any problems with it.

Please stick with the topic at hand which I stand corrected is not Science but Education in these fields and how it is presented to the public.

Seconded.

Roboramma

14th July 2008, 03:11 PM

shoot, we cross-posted again. give me a minute to read that. :)

Roboramma

14th July 2008, 03:18 PM

Okay, regarding those two examples, the only difference that I see is the second one uses three questionable phrases:
Inside, a magical change is taking place!
the butterfly is free to explore
butterflies love the sunlight

The problem with which isn't narrative language, but anthropomorphism in the case of the last two, and the way that a complex biological process is referred to as "magical".

Personally I don't think any of those are all that misleading, though I could be wrong about that. But the point I'd like to make is that if there's something wrong with it, it's not narrative language.

Moreover, the structure of that link was exactly the same, if more detailed, as the structure of drkitten's post, at least as far as I can see. I don't see what you use to distinguish between them, calling the link narrative and her post exposition.

quixotecoyote

14th July 2008, 03:23 PM

That's exposition and that would be fine with me. You see you CAN explain it using exposition.

http://www.hhmi.org/coolscience/butterfly/index.html

^^^^^^^ exposition

Both your example and dr. kitten's are examples of a narrative by most definitions. What definition are you using that excludes them?

paximperium

14th July 2008, 03:23 PM

Civilized Worm

14th July 2008, 03:29 PM

Yeah but some people will always get the wrong end of the stick and many will even intentionally twist meanings and take things out of context.

Edit: What's wrong with "survival of the fittest"?

truethat

14th July 2008, 03:32 PM

I think part of the reason people don't understand what I'm saying here is that they think I'm making a huge distinction or in some way suggesting that there is a sort of consipiracy theory on the part of Science to deliberately mislead the public.

That's not what I'm saying at all. It doesn't require massive changes just subtle ones.

Exposition is not story telling. STORY telling is the problem. That's it. Exposition achieves the same result without using narrative language.

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself properly.

I forgot that mythology to most people suggests that something isn't true "That's a myth"

That's not what I understand it to mean and I realize that most people don't understand the true definition of myth has nothing to do with truth but rather using mythical or magical words to explain something.

So lets take

Butterflies LOVE sunlight that's a mythical phrase. That's narrative. Its telling the story of the butterfly.

Butterflies thrive in sunlight, butterflies are drawn to sunlight, butterflies are not nocturnal etc etc.

There are other ways to explain the situation that are just as interesting and creative without resorting to narrative language and mythical traditions (one of which is anthropomorphism)

Now in the buttefly example its easy to see where its happening but when you take the general public which everyone agrees is not well versed in science, and you take more complicated theories and ideas, then its easy to see why people get confused.

BTW its generally understood that say in Genesis the language is narrative and mythological. God is an example of anthromorphism as is the snake in the garden of Eden. This is what makes it mythical.

quixotecoyote

14th July 2008, 03:36 PM

Butterflies LOVE sunlight that's a mythical phrase. That's narrative. Its telling the story of the butterfly.

No, that's a declaratory statement, exposition if you will. It's inaccurate in that it anthropomorphizes the relationship between butterflies and sunlight, but there is no story.

You really need to find a definition of narrative, exposition, and anthropomorphism. It will help your arguments immensely.

Roboramma

14th July 2008, 03:38 PM

You know truethat...I'm convinced by your argument.
Narrative argument, the telling of a story with embellishment is not a good way to convey scientific especially evolution to the public.

It just leads to misperceptions by the public. I believe one of the worst misperceptions of evolution is the bacteria changing into fish into amphibians, elephants and then man as often showed in cartoons or museum pictures...or the retarded criticism by Creationists. Another is "survival of the fittest".

However, I don't see it being used in scientific papers or textbooks but is rampant in museums and certain documentaries.

I also agree with all that. On the other hand, I don't see that narrative language is to blame. You mention embelleshment - well, of course that's a problem. The issue for me is that it's possible to use narrative language, even, as truethat mentions, mythical language, to accurately explain a concept.

paximperium

14th July 2008, 03:38 PM

Yeah but some people will always get the wrong end of the stick and many will even intentionally twist meanings and take things out of context.

Edit: What's wrong with "survival of the fittest"?
But we should be careful at how we convey meaning and things so that it is difficult to take it out of context.

"Survival of the Fittest" is easily misperceived and is overly simplified explanation of Natural Selection. It is easily misconstrued as "The strongest survive", not "survival of the best adapted traits in an environment."

truethat

14th July 2008, 03:43 PM

No, that's a declaratory statement, exposition if you will. It's inaccurate in that it anthropomorphizes the relationship between butterflies and sunlight, but there is no story.

You really need to find a definition of narrative, exposition, and anthropomorphism. It will help your arguments immensely.

I have posted the definition. This is my field so I'm sorry if I'm not explaining it properly. But that statement is a narrative.

I've posted it many times, here it is again

Definition of Narrative
A narrative is some kind of retelling, often in words (though it is possible to mime a story), of something that happened (a story). The narrative is not the story itself but rather the telling of the story -- which is why it is so often used in phrases such as "written narrative," "oral narrative," etc. 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. In a series of events, a car crash takes a split second. A narrative account, however, might be almost entirely about the crash itself and the few seconds leading up to it. Narratives thus shape history (the series of events, the story of what happened).

http://www.units.muohio.edu/technologyandhumanities/nardef.htm

The statement is a declarative statement I agree and I'm glad you brought that up because its also a problem I have with evolutionary narrative. Often the details are presented using declarative statements rather than suggesting that something is a theory. This only adds to the confusion.

For example "Dinosaurs are not cold blooded" is a declarative statement. Its a wrong statement.

The true statement is "Evidence supports the theory that Dinosaurs are not cold blooded"

The first statement in my opinion goes against paradigm of science and enters myth. To make a statement of fact about a speculation or deduction is to render it a "truth" and the ACT of doing this is part of narrative.

paximperium

14th July 2008, 03:44 PM

truethat

14th July 2008, 03:46 PM

I also agree with all that. On the other hand, I don't see that narrative language is to blame. You mention embelleshment - well, of course that's a problem. The issue for me is that it's possible to use narrative language, even, as truethat mentions, mythical language, to accurately explain a concept.

Oh I see what you are saying. I'm not saying that it can't either. But I'm noticing that this fast and loose approach to the truth when it comes to these fields of science when it comes to making it more palatable to the general public is what contributes to a lot of the confusion.

I don't blame narrative language per se. I blame how it is used.

That's a distinction I didn't feel I needed to make.

paximperium

14th July 2008, 03:47 PM

<Snip>
For example "Dinosaurs are not cold blooded" is a declarative statement. Its a wrong statement.

The true statement is "Evidence supports the theory that Dinosaurs are not cold blooded"

The first statement in my opinion goes against paradigm of science and enters myth. To make a statement of fact about a speculation or deduction is to render it a "truth" and the ACT of doing this is part of narrative.
How about "Dinosaurs are likely not cold blooded"?

truethat

14th July 2008, 03:47 PM

Do you think that narrative language is easier to misperceived with a certain "woo-ish" tone Vs exposition?

Can someone please tell me what a "woo" is? I've taken it to me a Creationist is that correct?

Hokulele

14th July 2008, 03:48 PM

You would use expository language rather than narrative. Narrative has a point, to tell a STORY. You don't need to tell a story to explain how something works. I've posted quite a few examples but I see that people are still confused. Its a fine line but easy to say.

Exposition doesn't have to be dry and boring.

I guess my question should have been phrased, do you think this is equally a problem outside of writing about science?

truethat

14th July 2008, 03:49 PM

How about "Dinosaurs are likely not cold blooded"?

That's not really a true statement either right? I mean its our opinion and deduction that this is true. The way you've worded it strikes me as sort of ....hmmm I don't know how to explain it but it doesn't really strike me as suggesting that this is our interpretation of the data.

paximperium

14th July 2008, 03:50 PM

Can someone please tell me what a "woo" is? I've taken it to me a Creationist is that correct?

Sorry. Woo is used to describe unskeptical supernatural claim or belief.

Psychics are woo. Dowsing is woo. Homeopathy is woo. etc.

truethat

14th July 2008, 03:52 PM

I guess my question should have been phrased, do you think this is equally a problem outside of writing about science?

Well yes. I think for example social sciences have this problem as well.

I think its only a problem when we as the general public have to rely on the authority of a field to tell us the information.

I would suggest that this is a problem in media as well with regard to politics. Media is supposed to be unbiased, or it was supposed to be. But when media does this, we tend to refer to it as propaganda.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=propaganda

paximperium

14th July 2008, 03:53 PM

That's not really a true statement either right? I mean its our opinion and deduction that this is true. The way you've worded it strikes me as sort of ....hmmm I don't know how to explain it but it doesn't really strike me as suggesting that this is our interpretation of the data.
Hmmm...but that easily leads to exposition becoming very unwieldy since many scientific statements are ultimately conclusions based on the current best available evidence.

Let's say "A nuclear fusion reaction is X(long description)"...do we have to add in "...as explained by the best evidence available." in the end?

Roboramma

14th July 2008, 03:56 PM

That's not what I'm saying at all. It doesn't require massive changes just subtle ones. Just to be clear- I agree with you about this.

Exposition is not story telling. STORY telling is the problem. That's it. Exposition achieves the same result without using narrative language. This is basically the issue I'm having. You haven't explained what it is about narratives, about story telling, that is inherently misleading. I think they can be a very useful way of explaining the meaning behind facts.

Butterflies LOVE sunlight that's a mythical phrase. That's narrative. Its telling the story of the butterfly. Is it?
What if it's true?
I don't think it's true of butterflies, but certainly if I said, "Those people who were crossing the land-bridge between asia and north america ten thousand or so years ago were human just like us - they loved each other and aspects of their lives, yearned for meaning, met the challenges of their environment with courage and fear, both." Would that be misleading? Would we do well to say the same thing with other, non-narrative, language?
My point is that the problem with the butterfly statement is that it's wrong, not that it's narrative or mythical language.

Jimbo07

14th July 2008, 03:56 PM

For example "Dinosaurs are not cold blooded" is a declarative statement. Its a wrong statement.

The true statement is "Evidence supports the theory that Dinosaurs are not cold blooded"

The first statement in my opinion goes against paradigm of science and enters myth. To make a statement of fact about a speculation or deduction is to render it a "truth" and the ACT of doing this is part of narrative.

Oh, this will be good, and ripe for a bloodletting :D ...

You're concerned that everybody adopt your definition of "myth." Please adopt a scientific definition of "theory." Then explain how a scientific theory differs from fact. Your distinction between the two statements above is very pedantic, if correct. However, the first statement does represent the best knowledge at the time of the statement. The second, while academically understood, leaves the door wide open for Creationists to come blustering through...

truethat

14th July 2008, 03:58 PM

Hmmm...but that easily leads to exposition becoming very unwieldy since many scientific statements are ultimately conclusions based on the current best available evidence.

Let's say "A nuclear fusion reaction is X(long description)"...do we have to add in "...as explained by the best evidence available." in the end?

This is a interesting question. Because when you think about it, it brings to mind the image of little helpers with post its adding to current statements. Which is the problem. The idea that these tag phrases need to be added to the end of the statements or hung in museums and whatnot, shows, that the narrative language has permeated the entire field to the degree that correction of this error seems to be an insurmountable task.

We can't really do that, but we can insist that all future statements refrain from the use of narrative, embelishment and creative license with regard to science.

paximperium

14th July 2008, 04:00 PM

Oh, this will be good, and ripe for a bloodletting :D ...

Oh...the horror...the horror :jaw-dropp

quixotecoyote

14th July 2008, 04:01 PM

I have posted the definition. This is my field so I'm sorry if I'm not explaining it properly. But that statement is a narrative.

I've posted it many times, here it is again

http://www.units.muohio.edu/technologyandhumanities/nardef.htm

In order for there to be a telling of a story, there needs to be a story to be told.

The bit you've bolded is emphasizing that narrative is a specific kind of storytelling that includes presentation of perspective, not that narrative and storytelling are separate things.

The statement is a declarative statement I agree and I'm glad you brought that up because its also a problem I have with evolutionary narrative. Often the details are presented using declarative statements rather than suggesting that something is a theory. This only adds to the confusion.

For example "Dinosaurs are not cold blooded" is a declarative statement. Its a wrong statement.

The true statement is "Evidence supports the theory that Dinosaurs are not cold blooded"

Both of these are declarative sentences. Both are statements of information. The information contained within the sentences are different, but the form is the same.

A declarative sentence simply states a fact or argument, states an idea, without requiring either an answer or action from the reader, it does not give a command or request, nor does it ask a question.

http://www.englishlanguageguide.com/english/grammar/declarative-sentence.asp

The first statement in my opinion goes against paradigm of science and enters myth.

This is a confusion of form and function. Both statement are isolated declarative statements. Their isolation prevents them from being a narrative. You also violate your own defintion of myth here, as the first sentence is simply 'not true' (assuming it isn't) and doesn't use any 'mythical or magical words'.

You also need to look up myth, because while you are correct that myth is not about true or false in the sense you are trying to use it, it also isn't about 'magical words'. Different people have different definitions. I'm speaking in my area of expertise now, as I'm about get my Masters degree in communication.

Here's one definition: "a system of communication, that it is a message cannot be possibly be an object, a concept, or an idea; it is a mode of signification, a form" -Roland Barnes

But that's a little dense and too far into semiotics for a casual discussion.

Michael Real has a simpler definition "the collective reenactment of symbolic archetypes that express the shared emotions and ideals of a given culture."

You might also look up Walter Fisher.

Whichever definition you use, you need to understand the myth and narrative is about more than figurative language and imagery.

truethat

14th July 2008, 04:08 PM

Oh, this will be good, and ripe for a bloodletting :D ...

You're concerned that everybody adopt your definition of "myth." Please adopt a scientific definition of "theory." Then explain how a scientific theory differs from fact. Your distinction between the two statements above is very pedantic, if correct. However, the first statement does represent the best knowledge at the time of the statement. The second, while academically understood, leaves the door wide open for Creationists to come blustering through...

Actually I thank you for posting this. This is the main problem I have with Evolutionary sciences, Origin Theories and Big Bang etc.

The problem in my opinion, is as I mentioned in the OP this knee jerk reaction to being concerned what Creationists will think or DO with the statements made by scientists.

I mean I understand that you are caught up in the Creationist debate but I am not. I think its mumbo jumbo. To me your comment reads no different than

Yeah but if we word it correctly that just leaves room for the Harry Potter fans to come blustering through!!! So we won't word it the right way to avoid this.

Except

We are now allowing creationists to INFLUENCE the field of science. And this bothers me to no end.

I could care less what a Creationist will "make of it" because in my opinion they are blathering on about nonsense.

Take someone coming up to you to tell you how to take care of your child? Would you refrain from correcting your child in public because a drunken homeless person may take umbrage at you doing so?

I've never understood the logic behind caring what a Creationist thinks about science.

Looks around for the supposed blood bath???:redface1

Since you are confused here's a great link that goes over a scientific theory versus a scientific fact. Btw I never mentioned "scientific fact" which is a different definition than the general understanding of the word fact.

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

http://ola4.aacc.edu/jsfreeman/TheoryandLaw.htm

As to "MY" interpretation of the word MYTH its not MY interpretation but the actual meaning of the word.

Cheers

truethat

14th July 2008, 04:12 PM

In order for there to be a telling of a story, there needs to be a story to be told.

The bit you've bolded is emphasizing that narrative is a specific kind of storytelling that includes presentation of perspective, not that narrative and storytelling are separate things.

Both of these are declarative sentences. Both are statements of information. The information contained within the sentences are different, but the form is the same.

This is a confusion of form and function. Both statement are isolated declarative statements. Their isolation prevents them from being a narrative. You also violate your own defintion of myth here, as the first sentence is simply 'not true' (assuming it isn't) and doesn't use any 'mythical or magical words'.

You also need to look up myth, because while you are correct that myth is not about true or false in the sense you are trying to use it, it also isn't about 'magical words'. Different people have different definitions. I'm speaking in my area of expertise now, as I'm about get my Masters degree in communication.

Here's one definition: "a system of communication, that it is a message cannot be possibly be an object, a concept, or an idea; it is a mode of signification, a form" -Roland Barnes

But that's a little dense and too far into semiotics for a casual discussion.

Michael Real has a simpler definition "the collective reenactment of symbolic archetypes that express the shared emotions and ideals of a given culture."

You might also look up Walter Fisher.

Whichever definition you use, you need to understand the myth and narrative is about more than figurative language and imagery.

Try looking up Northrop Frye and Cassirer. Those are the experts I have used when I got my Masters.

Communications is really a "media" based field from what I understand and not an academic degree. So I understand that you are using more common ideas about things.

I'm not here to argue with you so that you can flex your prowess. LOL. I started this thread to examine a specific thing. While you can go off on all sorts of interesting tangents (I'll definitely check out your sources) its not really addressing the point.

Semantics isn't the issue.

Some reading for you if you are interested.

http://www.ditext.com/sellars/rc.html

Oh I also forgot about Claude Lévi-Strauss

Roboramma

14th July 2008, 04:14 PM

Do you think that narrative language is easier to misperceived with a certain "woo-ish" tone Vs exposition?

When it's done wrong, certainly. Woo-ish language, yes.

On the other hand, I think that done well it can actually be more enlightening.

Truethat brought up neanderthals earlier. If we talked about neanderthals only expositorily, and took all of the mythical, emotional, poetic, language out of that, I think it would lead people to another false conclusion - that they were very very different from us, that we are a different kind of being. That's also a conclusion not supported by science. For instance, I think this passage:

It is among the Neanderthal people that deliberate burial of the dead occurs for the first time in human history. As early as 1908, in the cave of La Chapelle-aux-Saints, there was evidence of this practice. A Neaderthal hunter was laid out in a shallow trench, a bison leg set on his chest, and the trench strewn with tools and other animal bones. The similarity to the burial rites of many recent peoples, speeding the soul of the deceased on its way in the next world, is unmistakable. At La Ferrassie, also in France, over the course of the subsequent twenty-five years, there emerged the shape of a rock shelter that had been used as a family cemetery. Sixty thousand years ago, a man, a woman, two children about five years of age, and two infants were buried here, and with some ceremony. The man and woman were buried head to head, the children neatly laid at the man's feet; one of the infants, newly born, had been interred together with three beautiful and valuable flint tools. This infant was in a small earth mound adjacent to eight other similar mounds of unknown significance. In the Crimea, in Israel, and elsewhere in the Near East, a number of burials occur with the legs pulled up tightly to the body, and the one exception is still intriguing - it is a forty-five-year-old man with the jawbone of a boar held in his arms. In yet another Near Eastern site, a boy's grave is surrounded by pairs of goat horns.

Is accurate and enlightening. I don't think that changing the language would make any more so - in fact, I think the opposite is true.

I don't know if it quite qualifies as narrative or mythical, but I think it falls under that category of things we're discussing. (do you agree, truethat?)

Roboramma

14th July 2008, 04:19 PM

Jimbo07

14th July 2008, 04:23 PM

Actually I thank you for posting this. This is the main problem I have with Evolutionary sciences, Origin Theories and Big Bang etc.

The problem in my opinion, is as I mentioned in the OP this knee jerk reaction to being concerned what Creationists will think or DO with the statements made by scientists.

It's one I picked. The problem exists with Creationists, AGW deniers, cranks, and sometimes people with legit power like politicians.

I mean I understand that you are caught up in the Creationist debate but I am not.

I am not. This is not a limited problem. Anyone with an axe to grind can exploit the terms surrounding scientific uncertainty. In fact, I'm suspicious of your drive to introduce it so that "we can insist that all future statements refrain from the use of narrative, embelishment and creative license with regard to science." It smacks of the wedge of a wedge.

We are now allowing creationists to INFLUENCE the field of science. And this bothers me to no end.

They do not influence science, but they can have an effect on the need to adequately communicate science to the general public.

I could care less what a Creationist will "make of it" because in my opinion they are blathering on about nonsense.

Where I live, the problem is more with AGW denial, but one way or the other, it is the opponents of science who have much to gain through confusion.

I've never understood the logic behind caring what a Creationist thinks about science.

Presumably, people care about how they present their anti-science message.

Looks around for the supposed blood bath???:redface1

Since you are confused here's a great link that goes over a scientific theory versus a scientific fact. Btw I never mentioned "scientific fact" which is a different definition than the general understanding of the word fact.

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

http://ola4.aacc.edu/jsfreeman/TheoryandLaw.htm

The bloodbath smiley was in reference to threads which have spun around the theory vs. fact terminology.

As to "MY" interpretation of the word MYTH its not MY interpretation but the actual meaning of the word.

Not everyone agrees. Even if your (the) definition is correct, it is perhaps then too precise for those acquainted with the "general understanding."

truethat

14th July 2008, 04:28 PM

When it's done wrong, certainly. Woo-ish language, yes.

On the other hand, I think that done well it can actually be more enlightening.

Truethat brought up neanderthals earlier. If we talked about neanderthals only expositorily, and took all of the mythical, emotional, poetic, language out of that, I think it would lead people to another false conclusion - that they were very very different from us, that we are a different kind of being. That's also a conclusion not supported by science. For instance, I think this passage:

Is accurate and enlightening. I don't think that changing the language would make any more so - in fact, I think the opposite is true.

I don't know if it quite qualifies as narrative or mythical, but I think it falls under that category of things we're discussing. (do you agree, truethat?)

The quote you cite is exposition. Its not narrative. At least in my opinion. Its a fine distinction. I think that's what's causing the confusion. I also think you are overly focusing on Narrative.

I used that phrase as a springboard of sorts to get the conversation off the ground.

My point in thread which I apparently have not made clear is that we can't even usually GET to this conversation because every time I try to discuss how these fields are presented to the public I'm slammed by anti Creationists that go on the attack.

(Example is the first post in the thread)

I'd like to examine how Science contributes to its own confusion.

Roboramma

14th July 2008, 04:30 PM

That's not really a true statement either right? I mean its our opinion and deduction that this is true. And based on that, we've determined that it's likely true. I don't see anything wrong with that statement. The way you've worded it strikes me as sort of ....hmmm I don't know how to explain it but it doesn't really strike me as suggesting that this is our interpretation of the data.

Isn't everything our interpretation of the data? Some more sound, because it's based on a stronger case?
At some point things are well supported enough that we no longer feel the need to make qualifiers - the theory of gravity, for instance - but somewhere between the extremes there's a grey area where some people feel it's necessary, and others don't.

That said, I agree with you that there definitely are cases of scientists making such statements without such qualifiers when they should use qualifiers. I sometimes find myself putting those qualifiers in there, in my head. But once again (sorry to beat a dead horse) I don't see that as a problem of narrative language. It could just as easily be done with exposition.
"dinosuars were not cold-blooded" is not narrative, though in some cases it could be a part of a narrative explanation, it could as easily be part of an exposition.

truethat

14th July 2008, 04:33 PM

It's one I picked. The problem exists with Creationists, AGW deniers, cranks, and sometimes people with legit power like politicians.

I am not. This is not a limited problem. Anyone with an axe to grind can exploit the terms surrounding scientific uncertainty. In fact, I'm suspicious of your drive to introduce it so that "we can insist that all future statements refrain from the use of narrative, embelishment and creative license with regard to science." It smacks of the wedge of a wedge.

They do not influence science, but they can have an effect on the need to adequately communicate science to the general public.

Where I live, the problem is more with AGW denial, but one way or the other, it is the opponents of science who have much to gain through confusion.

Presumably, people care about how they present their anti-science message.

The bloodbath smiley was in reference to threads which have spun around the theory vs. fact terminology.

Not everyone agrees. Even if your (the) definition is correct, it is perhaps then too precise for those acquainted with the "general understanding."

Again, I don't CARE what Creationists think about Science. I want to know what we really know. I'm excited and interested in science but it seems more often than not I feel that I can't trust the books I read the shows I watch the papers I read aimed at the general public.

Now true I could go get myself up to speed and do proper research but I don't really have time to do that and its disappointing to me as a lay person that I can't depend on the information given to me by scientists because of the things I've mentioned.

I am sorry if I came across as pushing "My" definition of myth, that's not how I meant it to come across I just realized I made a glaring error in assuming that everyone understood what I meant by myth. I was trying to real it back in to make it clear, not chastise others for not being up to speed.

Additionally what is AGW? And what is a wedge of a wedge.

See every time I've tried to have this conversation I've been accused of being a closet creationist. It drives me NUTS that people can't conceive of someone criticizing these fields unless they have a God Axe to grind.

Roboramma

14th July 2008, 04:33 PM

My point in thread which I apparently have not made clear is that we can't even usually GET to this conversation because every time I try to discuss how these fields are presented to the public I'm slammed by anti Creationists that go on the attack.

Oh, as to that I agree.

I also have to say I'm quite enjoying this thread. Thanks for starting it, and for being so active in it. :)

Jimbo07

14th July 2008, 04:41 PM

Roboramma

14th July 2008, 04:42 PM

The quote you cite is exposition. Its not narrative. At least in my opinion. Its a fine distinction. I think that's what's causing the confusion. I also think you are overly focusing on Narrative. Yeah, I agree, part of the confusion is that I'm not entirely sure what you mean by narrative - I read you're definitions, I'm just still not entirely clear about the distinction.
As to that quoted text - I think at that point I was operating under that assumption (I didn't realise I was making this assumption) that you were talking about poetic language, or language specifically used to evoke emotion.
I think the butterfly example led me to that...

The reason that I'm focusing on narrative is that I think I agree with you about most of the rest of what you're saying - that science is often poorly communicated, that this leads to popular misunderstandings.

For instance, I was watching an episode of heroes the other day, in which one character (Dr. Mohindar Suresh) gives an explanation of evolution that is completely ridiculous, and yet seems to be a popular idea of the process. Many of my friends have similar ideas - this sort of anthropomorphised, purposeful process.
I think that you're right that some science writing does contribute to that - both by scientists who write popular books, and by popularizers.

I'd like to examine how Science contributes to its own confusion.

I don't know about science, per se, but some scientists. The question of whether or not they should put more effort into explaining their discoveries is a good one. It would, of course, take them away from actually making discoveries. On the other hand, an increased public understanding of science might supply greater support so that in the long run more research could be done.

Roboramma

14th July 2008, 04:50 PM

plumjam

14th July 2008, 04:58 PM

It drives me NUTS that people can't conceive of someone criticizing these fields unless they have a God Axe to grind.

True. A bit like McCarthyism. It stands to reason that anyone questioning the system has to be a COMMIE !
When belief systems feel themselves threatened it seems to generate this kind of paranoia.

truethat

14th July 2008, 05:00 PM

I think one point jimbo was trying to make is that it can be more misleading to add a "based on the available evidence we are led to the conclusion that..." statement to everything we say because it often implies a level of uncertainty that isn't there. We can't know for certain that birds are dinosaurs, but we are pretty sure. At this point, I don't think provisional statements are necessary for that for instance.

I think, sometimes such provisional statements are necessary, because we really don't have enough evidence to just say, "this is so", but sometimes they are actually more misleading than leaving them out.

Seems we are in agreement for the most part. Thanks for your replies.

Oh I see your point. Yes I agree that over complicating things can make it worse. However I don't think EVERY statement has to be corrected. What I mean is that we should take a different approach to explaining science to the public.

Take Walking with the Dinosaurs. That's total fiction but I can certainly imagine these uneducated folks that everyone is so concerned about probably believe a lot of what is in that documentary is true.

Next Jimbo I think you and others who have that knee jerk reaction should consider that you might be contributing more to the problem than the solution by instantly assuming that anyone who questions science is a creationist.

I think this gives Creationists way too much power in the world. And while I stand corrected that Creationists don't influence SCIENCE they most certainly DO influence the way science is presented to the public. And I'm tired of it. I'm well aware that Creationist zealotry hampers the way science expresses itself and I think it needs to stop.

truethat

14th July 2008, 05:02 PM

paximperium

14th July 2008, 05:16 PM

True. A bit like McCarthyism. It stands to reason that anyone questioning the system has to be a COMMIE !
When belief systems feel themselves threatened it seems to generate this kind of paranoia.
Wow...plumjam, playing the victim card again. Is that all you do when you have absolutely nothing to say?

Do you deny that you are a Creationist?
Do you deny that you lie to support your Creationist claims?
Do you deny that you use Creationist propaganda as the basis for your arguments?

paximperium

14th July 2008, 05:20 PM

Yeah that's a pretty accurate discription I have to say.

I disagree. There is significant suspicion about questions concerning evolution in forums like this because of people like Plumjam.

Creationists have played the "questioning curious" layperson many times in their agenda at attacking evolution. While the response of Pro-Science folk can be harsh, Creationists have used similar tactics to "questioning the narrative" etc. as wishy-washy tactics to attack science and evolution.

Plumjam loves to play semantic games and will never answer questions concerning his broad and dishonest statements about evolution. I would suggest you just ignore him.

quixotecoyote

14th July 2008, 05:22 PM

Try looking up Northrop Frye and Cassirer. Those are the experts I have used when I got my Masters.

Communications is really a "media" based field from what I understand and not an academic degree. So I understand that you are using more common ideas about things.

Communication, with no "s" is decidedly an academic field.

I'm not here to argue with you so that you can flex your prowess. LOL. I started this thread to examine a specific thing. While you can go off on all sorts of interesting tangents (I'll definitely check out your sources) its not really addressing the point.

Tangent? Your argument involves whether certain forms of communication are narrative/mythic. The definition of narrative/myth is CENTRAL, not tangential.

Semantics isn't the issue.

Some reading for you if you are interested.

Semantics most assuredly is the issue. You are using "myth" to mean simply "figurative language" when it has it's own definition quite apart from that.

http://www.ditext.com/sellars/rc.html

This link is a review that criticizes Cassirer for not defining what he means by myth as a symbolic form. In fact the overal tone of the review is fairly critical. Moreover, Cassirer is concerned with the origin of rules of language and used myth as a partial and poorly defined explanation. You would be much better served to use authors or works who primarly deal with myth itself.

Strauss is a much better choice in this regard, but he doesn't support your contention that "Dinosaurs are cold blooded" is a myth.

According to Strauss, mythical thought always progresses from the awareness of oppositions toward their resolution

-Stuctural Anthropology (http://books.google.com/books?id=RmeUknlauJAC&pg=PA224&vq=%22mythical+thought+always+progresses+from+the+ awareness+of+oppositions+toward+their+resolution%2 2&dq=strauss+structural+anthropology&source=gbs_search_s&sig=ACfU3U3D_06Y_zMdEQcS65NCg6FOcMUp2g)

For the quote to be an example of mythical thought, according to Strauss, there would have to be opposition and resolution, in that order. The phrase, "Dinosaurs are cold blooded" has neither of those qualities.

Why do you think Strauss supports your case?

paximperium

14th July 2008, 05:25 PM

Next Jimbo I think you and others who have that knee jerk reaction should consider that you might be contributing more to the problem than the solution by instantly assuming that anyone who questions science is a creationist.

I think this gives Creationists way too much power in the world. And while I stand corrected that Creationists don't influence SCIENCE they most certainly DO influence the way science is presented to the public. And I'm tired of it. I'm well aware that Creationist zealotry hampers the way science expresses itself and I think it needs to stop.
I don't instantly attack people who question evolution and assume that they are Creationists and I can't speak for others. However, certain Creationist buzz-words and arguments that specifically use philosophical or semantic arguments against evolution set off alot of alarms.

Foster Zygote

14th July 2008, 06:23 PM

joobz

14th July 2008, 07:06 PM

Narrative is used quite often in science. It makes things interesting and helps convey the reality.

An except from the grant I'm currently working on:
...at the cellular level, the tissue environment is a harsh landscape of precipitating proteins, released oxidants, and fluctuations of pH, which even with the slightest shift in stasis can induce a perpetual state of chronic inflammation. While in this embattled terrain, the most we can hope for from the biomaterials we design is a type of “meso-compatibility”, a material which can remain functional and benign for as long as required without succumbing to this cellular onslaught and inducing a local inflammatory reaction.

I hope you don't believe that this means the science is wrong.

joobz

14th July 2008, 07:16 PM

plumjam

14th July 2008, 07:24 PM

Do you deny that you are a Creationist?
Do you deny that you lie to support your Creationist claims?
Do you deny that you use Creationist propaganda as the basis for your arguments?

Right there you have just, probably unwittingly, proven my point re: McCarthyism.

arthwollipot

14th July 2008, 07:30 PM

I'm way behind on this thread, but I'l ljust answer this before I catch up.

Hmm well what I'm seeing in this thread is a sort of double standard. There's the argument that you are making that the average person won't understand the actual science so we need to embelish it to make it interesting.Nope, that's not what I said. I didn't say "embellish" and I didn't say "interesting".

Then I'm seeing the other argument that we should "trust scientists" to give us "what we need to know" because the average person doesn't understand science.But the average person doesn't understand science.

Now I'm seeing the argument that we should teach people to question everything they are told.Is there a problem with that?

The problem is that the raw data of science usually comes in the form of large tables of numbers. These are absolutely meaningless to most people in the world. Scientists can interpret these numbers to draw conclusions. These conclusions are usually in a form which is a little bit easier for the average person to understand, but also draws heavily on scientific jargon and prior knowledge. It is up to the science journalists to make scientific conclusions accessible to the general public - a task which they perform with greatly variable levels of success.

As I stated earlier I believe that using Narrative and mythological language CONFUSES the issue unnecessarily.Narrative, as I have suggested, is necessary in many cases. I'm not sure that mythological language even enters into it.

How about this instead? Just the facts mam? Instead of all this twisting and turning how about scientists leave the embelishment completely out of it and stick to just presenting the FACTS?

I'm really confused why this is considered a bad idea? LOLBecause as I said, the facts usually come in the form of huge tables of numbers. The public is not equipped to interpret these numbers, nor are they equipped to absorb the scientific papers themselves. Here's a test. Read a paper yourself. See how much you get out of it. Then read an article about the paper from Scientific American. You will see how much easier it is when narrative is used.

Irony

14th July 2008, 07:37 PM

Right there you have just, probably unwittingly, proven my point re: McCarthyism.

I can't help but notice you didn't answer the questions.

joobz

14th July 2008, 07:41 PM

The problem is that the raw data of science usually comes in the form of large tables of numbers. These are absolutely meaningless to most people in the world. Scientists can interpret these numbers to draw conclusions. These conclusions are usually in a form which is a little bit easier for the average person to understand, but also draws heavily on scientific jargon and prior knowledge. It is up to the science journalists to make scientific conclusions accessible to the general public - a task which they perform with greatly variable levels of success.
If you don't mind, I'd like to extend your point further.

Even raw data tables are uninformative to most scientists. Especially those outside the specific field. For that reason, researchers will often represent the data in some graphical way to illustrate the trends that the raw observations are demonstrating. This graphical representation is the illustrative analog to a narrative. It puts the raw data into a completely artifical form (often in terms of bars, points, curves, ..) to aide the readers understanding. At no time does any researcher reading a bar chart actually believe that the sample weight is a 2.5 inch long black rectangle while the control weight is a 1 inch long grey rectangle. Yet, we can see quite rapidly from that image that the sample weight is much heavier than the control. Without permitting this type of symbolism, papers would be excrutiatingly slow to read. This slow reading would grind the peer review process to a halt.

arthwollipot

14th July 2008, 07:49 PM

OK let me get this straight. So far the answers have been that its OK to dumb down science because people are too stupid to understand the truth. And they need interesting stories to keep them involved.Again, no. No-one's saying that science needs to be "dumbed down", or that people are too stupid to understand. You're interpreting our words according to your preconceived ideas.

Non-trained scientists do not have the background to understand the raw data. That's all. What you're saying is equivalent to saying that people are too stupid to conduct an orchestra. It's not about intelligence, it's about education. Please try to understand the difference.

Dancing David

14th July 2008, 08:00 PM

Mythology has no place in science. I see that you concede that science employs mythological traditions to get its point across but as have several others, shrugged the shoulders that its no big deal. So then why the scathing attacks on religions who try to do the same thing?

Wait a minute, this is a gross overgeneralization.

To sart with the BBE and then go onto the details of how the universe may have unfolded is one thing. IE the ex nihilio part and the other 99.9999999999% of what is taught.

there is a big difference between than and the creationist argument. Where they start with the ex nihilio part and continue the mythology.

What part is actualy based upon the mythology in most of what is taught?

So while I admire the idea of removing myth from education, I don't think it is possible. the history of dead white men for example.

Dancing David

14th July 2008, 08:04 PM

It's a pretty common pattern here. In my experience the forum is rather misrepresenting itself by wanting to appropriate the word 'skepticism' for itself, and wanting to associate itself with the prestige of science.
It's not that at all. Rather it's a place overwhelmingly populated by people who are believers in philosophical naturalism.
So science is good when its findings support naturalism, science is bad when it brings naturalism into question. Skepticism is good when it is used to defend naturalism, when skepticism questions naturalism it is no longer 'real skepticism'.. and will go by any of dozens of other epithets.

The TOE is perhaps the central supporting pillar of naturalism (as people here view it). Therefore, to question the TOE is to be trying to bring down the temple upon the faithful. Hence the heated, often irrational, reactions.

This is funny coming from a poster who will not defend, explain or support the statements that they make.

shadron

14th July 2008, 08:13 PM

Again, I don't CARE what Creationists think about Science. I want to know what we really know. I'm excited and interested in science but it seems more often than not I feel that I can't trust the books I read the shows I watch the papers I read aimed at the general public.

Now true I could go get myself up to speed and do proper research but I don't really have time to do that and its disappointing to me as a lay person that I can't depend on the information given to me by scientists because of the things I've mentioned.

I am sorry if I came across as pushing "My" definition of myth, that's not how I meant it to come across I just realized I made a glaring error in assuming that everyone understood what I meant by myth. I was trying to real it back in to make it clear, not chastise others for not being up to speed.

I feel your problem. As a life-long science lover (and currently a computer engineer) I have often found the simpler "general public" science to be too simplified for my tastes. I grew up reading Isaac Asimov, but I find that some (not all, by any means) of his books pale a bit, because they are aimed a a more general audience than he one I occupy; I've passed through that stage and want to go on.

Unfortunately, the pathway at this point is to start taking college level courses and really learn the stuff - the problem is that 1) I have to earn a living, 2)there are already too many demands on my time, and 3)some of the basic courses I'd have to take also cover things I already have covered myself. Impatient as I am, that is a problem.

As jj said, Scientific American is a good magazine for my type of person.

About the "narrative" science you've been talking about. A narrative is important for engagement. When the target of your writing may take it or leave it, you have to engage that person or fail. There are many sorts of such engagement, but they all are one version or another of telling a story tha has what you are trying to teach as a central part. Asimov, for instance was imminently good at this, and he used mostly history to engage his readers, along with some humor. Once you get above a certain level you don't need to engage, because you don't really care whether you are interesting he reader or not - he has to read it in order to stay up in the field. Being dry and pedantic ("turgid" is a really appropriate, graphic term for it) is not a problem for journal articles, where space, time and the message are of the essence.

Do you claim that your children need the same sort o science reading hat you do? As a person who's raised several, I don't think that's true. And I still watch NOVA and learn, though I'm getting really tired of National Geographic. Your thing about dinosaurs - mounted bones almost always have differences in appearance between true bones and fill-ins, even if the "real" bones are casts of the real bones. The T-Rex in the Colorado Natural History Museum is an excellent example, as is the Sauropod at the U of Wyoming Geological Museum, two I'm well acquainted with. It sounds to me that perhaps your child got a bi confused when the guide said something about the skeleton being a cast of tthe real one.

I'd like your opinion on the novel "Raptor Red" by Dr. Robert T. Bakker. I'd imagine you'd really hate it, as he uses a narrative story about a individual Utahraptor as a way to describe it and its world. It contains a huge amount of detail that is fictional or at least very extrapolated, exactly the sort of thing you have been decrying here. And yet it really works for trying to understand what a dinosaur is beyond the bones, and what the world it lived in was like. Should Bakker have not written it? And yet he says its fiction. How would you handle it?

I can't agree that removing he narrative would be a help in making headway in science education - far from it. Without NOVA, ands Asimov, and Sagan, and the others, my life would have been much poorer, and we'd have far fewer scientists today to do the real work, I think.

Dancing David

14th July 2008, 08:14 PM

This is the part of this whole thing that gives me pause. If you are considered a traitor for questioning the theory, then how is this possible? How is it possible to explore any other option (and no I don't mean God theories) when society is turning origins theories into the next sacred stories?

It has to do more with the narrative that someone else has written about the nature of 'materialism' and the Straw Kngdom that was created about the alleged materialist position.

i agree that narrative can be misleading, but being in education tangentialy, that would be the least of my concerns.

i would say that the theory of natural selection does not suffer so much by the narrative the proponents put to it, but from the narrative that those who oppose it put on it.

I have participated in many a rational argument here concerning the ToE, most of the anger and vitriol here is most likely people misperceiving your agenda.

Currently we have a very long thread that just ended about the word 'random' and evolution that was very interesting. While not presented by someone claiming to be a creationsist, it sure got weird and strange.

So i understand your question about narrative, but I would ask again, how much is taught based upon that narrative ? And that textbook writing is like making sausage? (especialy in the US where the facts that support the theory of natural selection have to be left out.)

plumjam

14th July 2008, 08:34 PM

Again, no. No-one's saying that science needs to be "dumbed down", or that people are too stupid to understand. You're interpreting our words according to your preconceived ideas.

Earlier on in the thread that was clearly what some people were saying.
Wolli, you're also making the mistake of speaking for others.

Remember what Monty Python had to say on the matter: (altogether) "We're ALL individuals!"..............."I'm not!" ;)

plumjam

14th July 2008, 08:43 PM

...especialy in the US where the facts that support the theory of natural selection have to be left out.

Could you please defend, explain or support this claim of yours?

joobz

14th July 2008, 08:45 PM

It's an interesting question, if narrative is a dumbing down of the science. I don't see it as such. I think the ability to relate a scientific principle simply is a strength of that science.

It was Feynman who would test his understanding of a theory based upon his ability to make a freshman lecture out of it. If he could express the concepts in such a way that a classroom fo 17-18 year old bright freshmen could understand, then he felt as though he (and by extension the science community) understood the principle. If he was unable to, then it was a clear indication that the problem/principle/issue wasn't that well understood.

I agree with this approach and think that a glorious simplification along with clever narrative analogy demonstrates a degree of understanding of a scientific concept. however, Science must have the added benefit of being a testable/repeatable/verifiable concept. Without that, the narrative is merely a story and not science.

truethat

14th July 2008, 08:57 PM

Here is Claude Lévi-Strauss's excerpt about Myth just for the sake of clarity. This is what I mean when I use the term MYTH and mythology.

Whatever our ignorance of the language and the culture of the people where it originated, a myth is still felt as a myth by any reader anywhere in the world. Its substance does not lie in its style, its original music, or its syntax, but in the story which it tells. Myth is language, functioning on an especially high level where meaning succeeds practically at "taking off" from the linguistic ground on which it keeps on rolling.

I realized that I didn't make clear that this is what I mean about recognizing "Mythical language" being used to describe a scientific theory.

I want to point out that I do not suggest that ALL science is described this way. But popular versions of science use this to get the point across and to engage the audience as we say.

It might be the only "fair fight" that Science has against religion and creationism. More specifically the public responds very well to mythic narrative. So this may be a situation of the public making popular those forms of science which use mythic or narrative language.

However we start down a slippery slope when we give "them more" of what they like. Because in my opinion it transforms science into myth?

I'm really grateful to those of you who have taken the time to try to understand my point even if I'm not doing the best job of getting my point across. I've been trying to explain this for years always to be smacked down into the "closet creationist" mire.

I am not a creationist.

Shadron, your post made me think. Without sounding conceited it might just be as you say that its glaringly obvious to me when its been dumbed down. Maybe this is my only gripe.

I will say that I'm so sick and tired of science responding to Creationism. IGNORE IT. Its ridiculous to me that most people see Creationism as the "alternative" to Evolution. I really feel that we are going to come across unknowns that will turn everything we know on its head and its unfortunate to me that we can't head there yet because of the senseless diversion into Creationist debate.

arthwollipot

14th July 2008, 08:59 PM

Earlier on in the thread that was clearly what some people were saying.I disagree - I don't think that's what they were saying at all. And anyway, I (and others) have elaborated enough that our meaning should be clear.

joobz

14th July 2008, 09:10 PM

Here is Claude Lévi-Strauss's excerpt about Myth just for the sake of clarity. This is what I mean when I use the term MYTH and mythology.
It's as clear as mud to me. Can you read my above posts and let me know if the examples I gave are narrative or not?
it'll help my understanding of your point.

truethat

14th July 2008, 09:11 PM

I disagree - I don't think that's what they were saying at all. And anyway, I (and others) have elaborated enough that our meaning should be clear.

I'm sorry but your meaning is not clear, to me and aparantly others. What you seem to be saying is that the general public is not well versed enough in science to present them with the data without embellishment or narrative or Evolutionary art.

I see it the other way, that science has gotten into the habit of presenting it this way and so this is what people accept. Science is what it is, if you need to "gussy it up" to get people's attention that's one thing as long as gussying it up is not presenting deduction as fact.

truethat

14th July 2008, 09:22 PM

Let me make a test:

Is this exposition or narrative?

A population contains a diveristy of traits as a result of random genetic mutation. Under a specific stressor(or set of stressors), individuals within that population which are able to withstand those stresses and have offspring will pass along thier genetic information and traits. Individuals which do not survive those stresses will not pass on thier genetic information. As a result, the genetic and phenotypic profile of the entire population shifts with time. This shifting in population phenotype and genotype with time as a result of environmental conditions is called evolution.

Woops!!! Thanks for reminding me, I wanted to get to this post.

In my opinion this is exposition.

I'm a little tipsy at the moment but I'll try to render the same thing in a way that I would consider Narrative.

A population contains a diveristy of traits as a result of random genetic mutation. Imagine you are a species of beetle that is colored bright green. The jubjub bird is your natural enemy and loves to pluck off your relatives from the trees in the forrest. But luckily you have not inherited these "bright green" genes from your relatives. You have been spared being eaten by your natural development of brown coloring.
Under a specific stressor(or set of stressors), individuals within that population which are able to withstand those stresses and have offspring will pass along thier genetic information and traits.

Unfortunately for the beetle family the bright greens have been eaten up and the surviving relatives are a muddy brown. You are lucky to have been born this boring color that served as a camoflague in the war against the jub jub bird.

Individuals which do not survive those stresses will not pass on thier genetic information. As a result, the genetic and phenotypic profile of the entire population shifts with time. This shifting in population phenotype and genotype with time as a result of environmental conditions is called evolution.

Unfortunately the bright green coloring of your former relatives will soon be a thing of the past since they did not survive in order to pass on their genes. This is the power of evolution and the way it shapes the world.

I know you might think I'm being silly but I've seen narratives like this and it drives me batty.

paximperium

14th July 2008, 09:24 PM

Right there you have just, probably unwittingly, proven my point re: McCarthyism.

I notice you didn't answer the question.
Still playing to victim..."boo hoo, I lie to make my points but got caught. I can't support my arguments. I'm being persecuted...boo hoo."

truethat

14th July 2008, 09:28 PM

I notice you didn't answer the question.
Still playing to victim..."boo hoo, I lie to make my points by got caught. I can't support my arguments. I'm being persecuted...boo hoo."

Paxi, do you think you could try, just for the sake of argument, not to allow yourself to be drawn into such a style of debate?

I know I'm not the perfect poster but this kind of stuff is sheer childishness to me. :catfight::catfight::catfight::j2::j2::catfight:

truethat

14th July 2008, 09:30 PM

It's as clear as mud to me. Can you read my above posts and let me know if the examples I gave are narrative or not?
it'll help my understanding of your point.

I'm going to excerpt from a paper I wrote. Its a bit lengthy but might make it clearer.

Claude Lévi-Strauss was an anthropologist who began the structural approach to understanding myth. In his studies he found a similarity in myths from various cultures based on the structure of the myth rather than the story. Though the characters and the events in the myth will be very different from culture to culture there is a similarity in all myths that cannot be denied. He writes in his essay “The Structural Study of Myth:”
Mythology confronts the student with a situation which at first sight appears contradictory. On the one hand it would seem that in the course of a myth anything is likely to happen. There is no logic, no continuity. Any characteristic can be attributed to any subject; every conceivable relation can be found. With myth, everything becomes possible. But on the other hand, this apparent arbitrariness is belied by the astounding similarity between myths collected in widely different regions. Therefore the problem: If the content of a myth is contingent, how are we going to explain the fact that myths throughout the world are so similar? (1)
To explain this Strauss suggests that myth is its own language; a language that is universally recognized in its meaningfulness.
Though the story of the myth might differ from culture to culture the essence of the myth is immediately recognizable whenever it is repeated. He continues to say:
Whatever our ignorance of the language and the culture of the people where it originated, a myth is still felt as a myth by any reader anywhere in the world. Its substance does not lie in its style, its original music, or its syntax, but in the story which it tells. Myth is language, functioning on an especially high level where meaning succeeds practically at "taking off" from the linguistic ground on which it keeps on rolling. (2)
Myth as language is a fascinating concept that is difficult to understand in a world of modern literacy. Indeed the way in which words are often the dominating manner, in which people communicate, it is strange to conceive of “myth” as something that bases its language on a transcendent aspect of the human experience. It is for this reason that the word resonance becomes relevant to this discussion.
Imagine placing a large number of whistles on the table and playing them one by one. Little by little it would become clear which whistles were more successful at creating a desired mood; which ones created a grating reaction in the listener. After a period the musician would have a series of whistles which he could use to create a story or musical theme that would elicit a basic unified response in the audience. It is in this way that myth serves as its own language. The stories of the myth have been narrowed down to a select group of myths that create a resonance within the audience. Even if we, as a Western audience, were to sit in on the myth telling of an indigenous population of some far reaching tribe of people living in a remote wilderness, the manner of the story being told would still sound an echo in our own mythical language and vice versa.

joobz

14th July 2008, 09:30 PM

Woops!!! Thanks for reminding me, I wanted to get to this post.

In my opinion this is exposition.

I'm a little tipsy at the moment but I'll try to render the same thing in a way that I would consider Narrative.

A population contains a diveristy of traits as a result of random genetic mutation. Imagine you are a species of beetle that is colored bright green. The jubjub bird is your natural enemy and loves to pluck off your relatives from the trees in the forrest. But luckily you have not inherited these "bright green" genes from your relatives. You have been spared being eaten by your natural development of brown coloring.
Under a specific stressor(or set of stressors), individuals within that population which are able to withstand those stresses and have offspring will pass along thier genetic information and traits.

Unfortunately for the beetle family the bright greens have been eaten up and the surviving relatives are a muddy brown. You are lucky to have been born this boring color that served as a camoflague in the war against the jub jub bird.

Individuals which do not survive those stresses will not pass on thier genetic information. As a result, the genetic and phenotypic profile of the entire population shifts with time. This shifting in population phenotype and genotype with time as a result of environmental conditions is called evolution.

Unfortunately the bright green coloring of your former relatives will soon be a thing of the past since they did not survive in order to pass on their genes. This is the power of evolution and the way it shapes the world.

I know you might think I'm being silly but I've seen narratives like this and it drives me batty.
Ok. I see. I don't think it's silly. I think you gave a rather common description of how evolution would be described. So, your complaint is really the style and not the substance.

I do not think that creative means of describing a theory diminishes the theory. Perhaps in the eyes of the layman, the story makes it appear "just-so" like any other origin story. But then, it misses the part that "evolution is based upon evidence.". This is usually also built into many narratives.

Now, I do not believe that narrative descriptions are done exclusively in the "lay-man" realm. As a researcher and priniciple investigator, many narratives are used in our lectures to each other as a means of getting across our ideas. (See my analogy of graphical representations of data as a corollary of this). Also, you can't attend a biological talk without seeing "cartoon" narratives describing complex cellular signaling events.

BTW, keep up the good work. I think your argument and challenge had provided me with an interesting view that I didn't have before. It's helped me frame a way of looking at my use of langauge in describing my research. I don't know if it'll make me better (lord knows I need the help), but it's a refreshing take.

paximperium

14th July 2008, 09:39 PM

I will say that I'm so sick and tired of science responding to Creationism. IGNORE IT. Its ridiculous to me that most people see Creationism as the "alternative" to Evolution. I really feel that we are going to come across unknowns that will turn everything we know on its head and its unfortunate to me that we can't head there yet because of the senseless diversion into Creationist debate.
I disagree. Most of science and most scientists don't much care about Creationists. They chug along, do their work and don't bother. This is what makes scientists who are working in science advocacy frustrated.

Leaving Creationists alone allows them to set the narrative in whatever way they want. They get to make up anything they want. If this is left unchallenged, it seeps into the public psyche. Pro-Science folk ignored Creationists for a long time and when they finally took notice, Creationists had modified the narrative to a more palatable Intelligent Design for the public.

Just curious as what you think about poetic statements made by scientists concerning science. One of the "worst" examples would be Carl Sagan:

“The Universe is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be. Our contemplations of the cosmos stir us. There’s a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation as if a distant memory of falling from a great height. We know we are approaching the grandest of mysteries. The cosmos is within us. We are made of star stuff. We’ve begun at last to wonder about our origins, star stuff contemplating the stars. Organized collections of ten billion billion billion atoms contemplating the evolution of matter, tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on planet Earth and perhaps throughout the cosmos. Our obligation to survive and flourish is owed not just to ourselves but also to that cosmos, ancient and vast from which we sprung.”
-Carl Sagan (beginning of the Cosmos series)

paximperium

14th July 2008, 09:42 PM

Paxi, do you think you could try, just for the sake of argument, not to allow yourself to be drawn into such a style of debate?

I know I'm not the perfect poster but this kind of stuff is sheer childishness to me. :catfight::catfight::catfight::j2::j2::catfight:
I apologize but I stopped "debating" plumjam sometime ago.

I have no interest in even being civil with him. He is a liar and to me he is not worth my time to be even polite to. I smack him around because it amuses me.

I apologize to you if it is unseemly.

truethat

14th July 2008, 09:43 PM

Ok. I see. I don't think it's silly. I think you gave a rather common description of how evolution would be described. So, your complaint is really the style and not the substance.
I do not think that creative means of describing a theory diminishes the theory. Perhaps in the eyes of the layman, the story makes it appear "just-so" like any other origin story. But then, it misses the part that "evolution is based upon evidence.". This is usually also built into many narratives.

Now, I do not believe that narrative descriptions are done exclusively in the "lay-man" realm. As a researcher and priniciple investigator, many narratives are used in our lectures to each other as a means of getting across our ideas. (See my analogy of graphical representations of data as a corollary of this). Also, you can't attend a biological talk without seeing "cartoon" narratives describing complex cellular signaling events.

BTW, keep up the good work. I think your argument and challenge had provided me with an interesting view that I didn't have before. It's helped me frame a way of looking at my use of langauge in describing my research. I don't know if it'll make me better (lord knows I need the help), but it's a refreshing take.

Awww what a nice reply!!!

But I know you might slap me I'm going to push it a little. Its not style. I have no problem with the data when the data is accurately presented.

What I'm saying is echoing Strauss

Its substance does not lie in its style, its original music, or its syntax, but in the story which it tells. Myth is language, functioning on an especially high level where meaning succeeds practically at "taking off" from the linguistic ground on which it keeps on rolling

And what I myself stated

Even if we, as a Western audience, were to sit in on the myth telling of an indigenous population of some far reaching tribe of people living in a remote wilderness, the manner of the story being told would still sound an echo in our own mythical language and vice versa.

The language of "myth" which I coin as narrative is recognizable to students of mythology. That's why the book I mentioned in the beginning included Big Bang, in its Creation myths.

Its the "story" which is the same. Boy I hope I make this clear!!

The story of myth

HEY wiki has a good explanation

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

As a scholar of mythical narrative I recognized the first example I gave as a creation myth immediately. Just as I would a Native American or Massai Creation Myth.

Wow I found an example on WIKI as well. I guess I'm NOT the only one who has noticed this.

"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.

Here's that example again

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/univ-nf.html

truethat

14th July 2008, 09:48 PM

I disagree. Most of science and most scientists don't much care about Creationists. They chug along, do their work and don't bother. This is what makes scientists who are working in science advocacy frustrated.

Leaving Creationists alone allows them to set the narrative in whatever way they want. They get to make up anything they want. If this is left unchallenged, it seeps into the public psyche. Pro-Science folk ignored Creationists for a long time and when they finally took notice, Creationists had modified the narrative to a more palatable Intelligent Design for the public.

Just curious as what you think about poetic statements made by scientists concerning science. One of the "worst" examples would be Carl Sagan:

“The Universe is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be. Our contemplations of the cosmos stir us. There’s a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation as if a distant memory of falling from a great height. We know we are approaching the grandest of mysteries. The cosmos is within us. We are made of star stuff. We’ve begun at last to wonder about our origins, star stuff contemplating the stars. Organized collections of ten billion billion billion atoms contemplating the evolution of matter, tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on planet Earth and perhaps throughout the cosmos. Our obligation to survive and flourish is owed not just to ourselves but also to that cosmos, ancient and vast from which we sprung.”
-Carl Sagan (beginning of the Cosmos series)

Oh I see why you flounder. You think the Creationists are "putting the stories into the public psyche" where I and most other scholars of mythology would agree that they originate there.

And as much as I love Carl Sagan, love him to bits and bits and bits. His statement is just one more mythological explanation of the "US".

Like I said, it originates in the psyche. You are just quibbling over whose neurosis is the right one.

drkitten

14th July 2008, 09:48 PM

That's exposition and that would be fine with me. You see you CAN explain it using exposition.

Then I neither see nor understand the distinction you're drawing.

truethat

14th July 2008, 09:50 PM

Then I neither see nor understand the distinction you're drawing.

I know sometimes we post before we've read through the whole thread. I hope my subsequent posts make it clearer. :cry1: Otherwise I feel bad.

paximperium

14th July 2008, 09:53 PM

Oh I see why you flounder. You think the Creationists are "putting the stories into the public psyche" where I and most other scholars of mythology would agree that they originate there.

And as much as I love Carl Sagan, love him to bits and bits and bits. His statement is just one more mythological explanation of the "US".

Like I said, it originates in the psyche. You are just quibbling over whose neurosis is the right one.
If these neurosis are so ingrained in our psyches, what are your suggestions in dealing with the current Evolution debate in "selling" it to the public without leading to an unscientific narrative?

truethat

14th July 2008, 09:58 PM

If these neurosis are so ingrained in our psyches, what are your suggestions in dealing with the current Evolution debate in "selling" it to the public without leading to an unscientific narrative?

Well the key is to recognize when we are being pulled in that direction. Its no accident that the public responds well to this type of story.

Joseph Campbell is the one who created the "hero archtype" and he was the advisor on the Star Wars series. That became a billion dollar industry. So did? Can you think of the most recent example of the hero archetype?

Well of course its Harry Potter. Jospeh Campbell found that all mythologies use the same story. The same myth. That's what I'm getting at.

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

Of course the sciences that present their theories using mythological language are going to be more popular than others.

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

That's what concerns me. I would hope by the way that people would pause for a sec before lambasting me to actually consider what I'm saying.

paximperium

14th July 2008, 10:05 PM

Well the key is to recognize when we are being pulled in that direction. Its no accident that the public responds well to this type of story.

Joseph Campbell is the one who created the "hero archtype" and he was the advisor on the Star Wars series. That became a billion dollar industry. So did? Can you think of the most recent example of the hero archetype?

Well of course its Harry Potter. Jospeh Campbell found that all mythologies use the same story. The same myth. That's what I'm getting at.

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

Of course the sciences that present their theories using mythological language are going to be more popular than others.

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

That's what concerns me. I would hope by the way that people would pause for a sec before lambasting me to actually consider what I'm saying.

I understand the concepts of archetypes and its commonality between cultures etc. and yes, by selling evolution by using mythological language, it will lead to it being accepted as is without any critical thinking or even understanding.

Am I correct, in essence you are worried that if evolution is sold using mythic narratives it will ultimately become dogma and not science?

Well then...I guess all we can do is teach the public critical thinking and hope for the best.

truethat

14th July 2008, 10:16 PM

I understand the concepts of archetypes and its commonality between cultures etc. and yes, by selling evolution by using mythological language, it will lead to it being accepted as is without any critical thinking or even understanding.

Am I correct, in essence you are worried that if evolution is sold using mythic narratives it will ultimately become dogma and not science?

Well then...I guess all we can do is teach the public critical thinking and hope for the best.

Good question. I think I'm more concerned that we are being sold the idea that dogma IS science. As you can see, people who question the "Big Idea' are treated harshly. Can you say heretic?

Its slowly advancing in that direction. This is why its become a swordfight with Creationism.

What is the worry? Well in this country regardless of how powerful the religious movements have been, we as individuals have always been protected against the tyranny of the masses by excercising our right to freedom of religion, or no religion at all.

In this country there is a separation of church and state? But there is no separation of science and state. It worries me that religious tones are being swept into science.

paximperium

14th July 2008, 10:27 PM

Good question. I think I'm more concerned that we are being sold the idea that dogma IS science. As you can see, people who question the "Big Idea' are treated harshly. Can you say heretic?

Its slowly advancing in that direction. This is why its become a swordfight with Creationism.

What is the worry? Well in this country regardless of how powerful the religious movements have been, we as individuals have always been protected against the tyranny of the masses by excercising our right to freedom of religion, or no religion at all.

In this country there is a separation of church and state? But there is no separation of science and state. It worries me that religious tones are being swept into science.
I don't see this in the slightest. The harsh tone you elicited is anecdotal and is due to the suspicion of many pro-science posters of Creationist hiding as "sincere questioners".

I no longer do any basic science but clinical research but have many friend's who are involved with astronomical and biological research and the battles in science are still rampant. While the "big idea" is often the basis of most research, a few opposing or advancing hypothesis are presented during many scientific conferences.

The thing is, you can't challenge the "big idea" out of the blue. You must have a basis and evidence to do so. Any "new idea" must take into account all the prior findings and evidence from all the prior "big ideas". Science is inherently conservative. It can take decades for ideas to be accepted since it needs to be confirmed by multitude others.

There should not be a separation of science and state since science is knowledge and it should direct how our decision makers make decisions. However, I agree that dogma should be kept out of science although I don't really see this occurring in academia at all.

arthwollipot

14th July 2008, 10:39 PM

I'm sorry but your meaning is not clear, to me and aparantly others. What you seem to be saying is that the general public is not well versed enough in science to present them with the data without embellishment or narrative or Evolutionary art.Okay. You said basically that science makes stuff up because people are too stupid to understand it. I said no, that's not the case, and elaborated on why I think it is not the case. Specifically, the distinction between intelligence and education. I like to think I'm a reasonably intelligent person, but if you showed me a paper about General Relativity, I would completely fail to understand it because I don't have the mathematical background. The equations would be so much scribbles on paper to me. However, when I read some of the things that Stephen Hawking or Brian Greene have written about GR, then I begin to understand the concepts involved. Because they use a narrative (or expositional) style to describe GR, it has made a very complex subject understandable to me.

And plumjam misunderstands because he has an ideological axe to grind. I wouldn't pay much attention to whether he gets what I mean. So far as I can tell, everyone else has either understood what I meant or not mentioned it.

I see it the other way, that science has gotten into the habit of presenting it this way and so this is what people accept. Science is what it is, if you need to "gussy it up" to get people's attention that's one thing as long as gussying it up is not presenting deduction as fact.Apparently you haven't read any scientific papers. The science (as published in peer-reviewed journals) is not gussied up. It's straightforward scientific knowledge. But as I said, not particularly digestible by lay folk like me. That's why we turn to the scientific journalism such as Scientific American and New Scientist - they translate the heavy jargon and data laden papers into something that I can understand and be fascinated by.

Roboramma

14th July 2008, 10:53 PM

A population contains a diveristy of traits as a result of random genetic mutation. Imagine you are a species of beetle that is colored bright green. The jubjub bird is your natural enemy and loves to pluck off your relatives from the trees in the forrest. But luckily you have not inherited these "bright green" genes from your relatives. You have been spared being eaten by your natural development of brown coloring.
Under a specific stressor(or set of stressors), individuals within that population which are able to withstand those stresses and have offspring will pass along thier genetic information and traits.

Unfortunately for the beetle family the bright greens have been eaten up and the surviving relatives are a muddy brown. You are lucky to have been born this boring color that served as a camoflague in the war against the jub jub bird.

Individuals which do not survive those stresses will not pass on thier genetic information. As a result, the genetic and phenotypic profile of the entire population shifts with time. This shifting in population phenotype and genotype with time as a result of environmental conditions is called evolution.

Unfortunately the bright green coloring of your former relatives will soon be a thing of the past since they did not survive in order to pass on their genes. This is the power of evolution and the way it shapes the world.

I know you might think I'm being silly but I've seen narratives like this and it drives me batty.

Thanks for that - it helped to make your distinction more clear.

Could you explain what about your narrative you consider bad or counter-productive to communicating science?

Roboramma

14th July 2008, 11:03 PM

Good question. I think I'm more concerned that we are being sold the idea that dogma IS science. As you can see, people who question the "Big Idea' are treated harshly. Can you say heretic? Well, I don't think that's really true, at least to a great extent, but suppose it is.
Is this attributable to the communication of science as narrative? How?

plumjam

14th July 2008, 11:21 PM

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

Bingo!
*speaks into lapel* Houston, we have a thinker.

I'd be interested to know if you have any ideas regarding how the story we tell ourselves in the evolutionary paradigm (by that I mean not just Darwinism, but also abiogenesis, chemical evolution, the big bang etc..) relates to the archetypal stories commonly found in mythology. I only read one Joseph Campbell book years ago, so I know very little on the topic.
I'm guessing that trying to detect some parallels would be an interesting exercise.

(Note to readers: Being able to draw parallels to mythological archetypes will not necessarily sully the truth of any theory, including evolution)

truethat

14th July 2008, 11:36 PM

I don't see this in the slightest. The harsh tone you elicited is anecdotal and is due to the suspicion of many pro-science posters of Creationist hiding as "sincere questioners".

I no longer do any basic science but clinical research but have many friend's who are involved with astronomical and biological research and the battles in science are still rampant. While the "big idea" is often the basis of most research, a few opposing or advancing hypothesis are presented during many scientific conferences.

The thing is, you can't challenge the "big idea" out of the blue. You must have a basis and evidence to do so. Any "new idea" must take into account all the prior findings and evidence from all the prior "big ideas". Science is inherently conservative. It can take decades for ideas to be accepted since it needs to be confirmed by multitude others.

There should not be a separation of science and state since science is knowledge and it should direct how our decision makers make decisions. However, I agree that dogma should be kept out of science although I don't really see this occurring in academia at all.

We're not talking about academia. We're talking about how it is presented to the public.

BTW I really tire of the paranoid sense that comes out of people not wanting to concede points made, that behind every criticism of the BIG IDEA is a warrior creationist.

Its really paranoid in my opinion. How in the world did we get to the point that merely QUESTIONING something on a message board gets you labled?

Oh wait, that heresy charge again.

History does repeat itself.

truethat

14th July 2008, 11:40 PM

Okay. You said basically that science makes stuff up because people are too stupid to understand it. I said no, that's not the case, and elaborated on why I think it is not the case. Specifically, the distinction between intelligence and education. I like to think I'm a reasonably intelligent person, but if you showed me a paper about General Relativity, I would completely fail to understand it because I don't have the mathematical background. The equations would be so much scribbles on paper to me. However, when I read some of the things that Stephen Hawking or Brian Greene have written about GR, then I begin to understand the concepts involved. Because they use a narrative (or expositional) style to describe GR, it has made a very complex subject understandable to me.

And plumjam misunderstands because he has an ideological axe to grind. I wouldn't pay much attention to whether he gets what I mean. So far as I can tell, everyone else has either understood what I meant or not mentioned it.

Apparently you haven't read any scientific papers. The science (as published in peer-reviewed journals) is not gussied up. It's straightforward scientific knowledge. But as I said, not particularly digestible by lay folk like me. That's why we turn to the scientific journalism such as Scientific American and New Scientist - they translate the heavy jargon and data laden papers into something that I can understand and be fascinated by.

I think you are missing the distinction between what is presented to the public and what is considered science. If what was written in the peer reviewed articles followed the same rules we'd not be having this discussion.

For example stating declaratives when they are supports of theory is not scientific and would not be accepted in a peer reviewed article.

The neanderthal tooth statement of proof is a good example of that. But science gets away with presenting this stuff to the public this way because public doesn't know better.

The first bolded part bothered me. I don't think Science makes things up, that's not what I'm saying although I can see why you think that's what I'm saying.

Science doesn't make things up in the real hard science of it, only when its presented to the public do I see what I call "slippage"

truethat

14th July 2008, 11:50 PM

Thanks for that - it helped to make your distinction more clear.

Could you explain what about your narrative you consider bad or counter-productive to communicating science?

If you sincerely want to understand this I suggest rereading the quote that I posted from my essay.

What I consider counter productive to the use of narrative is that it starts sounding like myth.

This is why the public likes it so much. This is why the public responds to it so much. Its like the whistle example.

Imagine if you will someone calling on a "dog whistle" of sorts. Something that unconsciously gets people's attention. And imagine studying the reaction of people to dog whistles?

Now most people will say if they are being kind about spirituality, that they don't like RELIGION but they are ok with spirituality or what not.

For me, the reason people feel this way is because of what religious fervor creates. It creates a resistance to new ideas, it creates a "circle the wagons" type of mentality. It creates a paranoia of people on the "look out" for wolves in sheeps clothing. It creates a narrow minded THIS IS THE RIGHT ANSWER way of thinking.

I think many people have experienced the ill effects of these types of things with regard to religion.

What worries me when I see Narrative language being used in a way that tells mythical stories is that it creates the "tyranny of the masses" that those that are strongest monopolize the way we are allowed to THINK.

And frankly I see a whole hell of a lot of this with regard to Evolution and Orgins theories. It almost freaks me out to think that down the line in say 30 years I might live in a society that punishes people for thinking differently.

Why the hostility? You only have to read THIS THREAD to see what I'm talking about?

Why is this like this? What I wonder is if there's other ideas out there that aren't getting attention because "this must be the answer" and NO I'm not talking about freaking GOD THEORY.

I just feel like its not science any more.

truethat

15th July 2008, 12:01 AM

Bingo!
*speaks into lapel* Houston, we have a thinker.

I'd be interested to know if you have any ideas regarding how the story we tell ourselves in the evolutionary paradigm (by that I mean not just Darwinism, but also abiogenesis, chemical evolution, the big bang etc..) relates to the archetypal stories commonly found in mythology. I only read one Joseph Campbell book years ago, so I know very little on the topic.
I'm guessing that trying to detect some parallels would be an interesting exercise.

(Note to readers: Being able to draw parallels to mythological archetypes will not necessarily sully the truth of any theory, including evolution)

You only have to look as far as the Hebrew bible to find examples. In the Hebrew translation of the Torah,

Veha'arets hayetah tohu vavohu vechoshech al-peney tehom veruach Elohim merachefet al-peney hamayim

The earth was without form and empty, with darkness on the face of the depths, but God's spirit moved on the water's surface.

The actual translation of tohu vavohu means chaos. Order out of chaos.

Big Bang sounds very similar to that

Its a typical Creation Myth motif Ex nihilo

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

Edit

If you scroll to the bottom you see that Big Bang is listed as having this motif.

arthwollipot

15th July 2008, 12:39 AM

I think you are missing the distinction between what is presented to the public and what is considered science. If what was written in the peer reviewed articles followed the same rules we'd not be having this discussion... Science doesn't make things up in the real hard science of it, only when its presented to the public do I see what I call "slippage"Fair enough. And yes, as I said, there is good and bad science journalism. The good ones are worth reading.

Roboramma

15th July 2008, 01:03 AM

If you sincerely want to understand this I suggest rereading the quote that I posted from my essay. To be honest, I didn't find it clear at all. Sorry, I tried, but my reaction similar to the one joobz expressed - I just didn't get it. I am trying, however.

What I consider counter productive to the use of narrative is that it starts sounding like myth. Okay. I take from this (correct me if I'm wrong) that you consider narrative language okay when it doesn't sound like myth?

Personally, I actually don't have a problem with it sounding like myth, so long as it's accurate.

Now most people will say if they are being kind about spirituality, that they don't like RELIGION but they are ok with spirituality or what not.

For me, the reason people feel this way is because of what religious fervor creates. It creates a resistance to new ideas, it creates a "circle the wagons" type of mentality. It creates a paranoia of people on the "look out" for wolves in sheeps clothing. It creates a narrow minded THIS IS THE RIGHT ANSWER way of thinking. I can see that religous and dogmatic thinking work that way. I don't see that mythically expressed explanations lead to that sort of thinking, however.

I think many people have experienced the ill effects of these types of things with regard to religion.

What worries me when I see Narrative language being used in a way that tells mythical stories is that it creates the "tyranny of the masses" that those that are strongest monopolize the way we are allowed to THINK. That this happens is definitely true. I'm just not sure that it's a consequence of mythic language.

And frankly I see a whole hell of a lot of this with regard to Evolution and Orgins theories. It almost freaks me out to think that down the line in say 30 years I might live in a society that punishes people for thinking differently.
What you're seeing isn't, in my opinion, a result of mythic language. It's a result of the fact that religious people are trying to control what's taught in schools. It's a response to the fact that they want their religion taught in schools.
I actually disagree, to an extent, with the vehemence. I think the only way to have a viable dialog is to have a dialog, but I can understand it.

As to the fear that 30 years from now people will be punished for opposition to the theory of evolution?
Not very likely. I don't think there's any evidence to support that fear, thankfully.

Why is this like this? What I wonder is if there's other ideas out there that aren't getting attention because "this must be the answer" and NO I'm not talking about freaking GOD THEORY. I didn't think you were. :)
I think you'll find, if you look, that scientists are still putting forth ideas about the mechanism behind evolution, for instance. Group selection was relatively popular, from my understanding, in the 60s, but it's pretty much out of fashion now. The evidence is that it doesn't work.
That natural selection may not be the driving force of evolution is quite possible (though I think pretty unlikely) and anyone suggesting other mechanisms, and evidence to support them, will be well heard.
If you're worried about science not being done because of this, I have to say I don't see it - do you have any evidence that any journals, for instance, refuse papers based on proposing theories contradictory to evolution? That scientists don't get grants for that reason?
I mean, what actual science is being ignored?

I admit that I haven't been convinced by your arguments so far - but that doesn't mean I haven't listened to them. I applaud you for making them - you've had to keep up with a lot of posters and you've spoken made your points admirably, seldom getting caught up in emotional language.
I also think I've been entirely civil and non-reactionary toward you so far, I've done my best to sincerely try to understand your points (and I think I have for the most part, though some of it is still a little unclear to me). I think some of the others have done so as well. I hope you agree with that.

Hokulele

15th July 2008, 03:20 AM

arthwollipot

15th July 2008, 07:08 AM

Truethat, just as a question (call me curious) - do you feel that the inflationary big bang model of cosmology is a pretty accurate description of what is likely to have actually happened?

Dancing David

15th July 2008, 08:17 AM

*yawn* .. I see I have another little stalker

And that you refuse to answer a direct question.

Dancing David

15th July 2008, 08:22 AM

Dancing David

15th July 2008, 08:33 AM

Oh I see what you are saying. I'm not saying that it can't either. But I'm noticing that this fast and loose approach to the truth when it comes to these fields of science when it comes to making it more palatable to the general public is what contributes to a lot of the confusion.

I don't blame narrative language per se. I blame how it is used.

That's a distinction I didn't feel I needed to make.

great discussion, i think that part of the issue is the way media work.

In the past many people made conclusions that later turned out to not be the best fit for a model to describe the behavior of reality.

Thus we are stuck with "descent from the apes", "survival of the fittest", "the universe started in a huige explosion", and other myths.

A large part of it is that a lot of the narrative is not told by scientists, another is that people are really put off by the neutral couching of language.

Then there are those who deliberately misrepresent what current theory is. Science is slippery enough in and of itself to cause problems for people who want truth.

i have created a storm on the JREf for saying things like "All thoughts are equally true and untrue. Some are just better at describing reality than others." opeople seem to want to have some sort of 'truth' and stability in the ways that the universe is described. despite the fact that it is shifting and transitory.

I view it as being part of the human experience, we have a heirarchy as it were
-gross representaion
-refined representaion
-representation that uses the most careful language possible

And so often ease of communication or the deliberate telling of a narrative do cause some confusion.

there are those who don't care and just misrepresent the current state of the model no matter what it is.

I don'ty see this as becoming religion since that is faithed based, i see it more as the social and cultural mores and personal styles of interaction.

Just as you have very careful and neutral in this thread, but people will conflate you with Plumjam.

many creationists forget that stellar physicists and evolutionary biologists are very religous people, they are not fundamentalists but they are very religous.

Wowbagger

15th July 2008, 09:11 AM

For what it's worth: No legit scientist thinks that the Big Bang occured ex nihilo. It is generally accepted that it occured through some "initial condition".

Granted, we might not know very much, at all, about that "initial condition". However, whatever it was, it was certainly NOT nothing.

joobz

15th July 2008, 09:51 AM

Awww what a nice reply!!!

But I know you might slap me I'm going to push it a little. Its not style. I have no problem with the data when the data is accurately presented.

What I'm saying is echoing Strauss

And what I myself stated

The language of "myth" which I coin as narrative is recognizable to students of mythology. That's why the book I mentioned in the beginning included Big Bang, in its Creation myths.

Its the "story" which is the same. Boy I hope I make this clear!!

The story of myth

HEY wiki has a good explanation

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

As a scholar of mythical narrative I recognized the first example I gave as a creation myth immediately. Just as I would a Native American or Massai Creation Myth.

Wow I found an example on WIKI as well. I guess I'm NOT the only one who has noticed this.

Here's that example again

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/univ-nf.html
Pardon my crude summation, but I think you are saying myth is a language used that resonants with a person on a particular level.

I see a strong parrallel in this definition to that of the Supreme Court's view of Obscenity.
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material ... but I know it when I see it." pardon the elipsis, I can't find the full untrunctated quote.

This definition is, in some ways, acceptable for obscenity, because 1.) Obscenity changes with the times and 2.) it requires a pattern recognition.

And I think your classification of mythology is a pattern recognition classification. This isn't a bad thing, rather quite a complex/advanced view.

Humans are extremely good at pattern recognition. We are able to view/understand a set of ideas and recognize patterns that fit in with other things of our experience. We are able to, quite rapidly, define things into categorical bins: obscene/not obscene, Myth/not myth, sprial galaxy/lenticular galaxy/elliptical/irregular/other.

On the other hand, computers are quite terrible (still) at doing this type of binning. It requires a series of "fuzzy" assumptions and blurring of distinctions to see the whole pattern. The Computer could count the number of tress, but can't tell you about the forest. In fact, scienctists have started taking advantage of humans natural capacity for pattern recognition in the categorizing galaxies from photos. (I can't find the ref right now)

Now, the problem with our ability to do pattern recognition is that it is extremely easy to see a pattern and make a false classification. We can look at a tree, and see a face in the bark. We can make out a castle in the clouds. But these observed patterns do not reflect the reality of what is being observed.

As such, regardless of how arbitrary the definitions may be, we must define the categories and apply tests to see if what we observe is indeed what we claim to see.
For a face to be a face, It should have 2 eyes, a nose a mouth. That tree doesn't have those things, it has a knot of wood a circular scar and some loose bark. while, those things look like they come together as a face, it isn't a face.

Note that these definitions are extremely difficult and vague. A face could have 1 eye. A face could have no nose. We've seen examplse of people with faces such as those. So we must be willing to be a bit flexable in making our tests. We could apply multiple definitions for face and see how many work. If they don't, then it seems clear that what we observed isn't a face at all.

In this regard, yes, evolutionary theory and the Big bang thoery have elements which give the pattern of myth. After all, they attempt to address fundemental questions that many myths try to address, "Why are we here?" "Why are we different from other things?" "HOw did all this come to be?"

But this is really only a type of Pareidolia. The evolutionary theory, unlike myths, is testable and supported by all observed evidence. It is impossible to discuss it's implications without sounding mythical, but sounding mythical and being a myth are not the same thing. We must gaurd ourselves against seeing the face in the tree and therefore believing that the tree was once a person.

Plumjam, I believe this point relates back to our previous discussion on micro vs. macroevolution. You recognize a pattern. One which makes you say that
this is microevolution and this is macroevolution. As patterns, I'm willing to accept that these definitions are hard to make. However, it is my belief that you are seeing a pattern that isnt there. A face in the tree.

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.

drkitten

15th July 2008, 10:01 AM

I know sometimes we post before we've read through the whole thread.

I know sometimes we do. This time I didn't.

I hope my subsequent posts make it clearer.

Not in the slightest.

:cry1: Otherwise I feel bad.

I wouldn't bother; I'd simply recommend giving a better, or at least different, explanation. Other than "don't overanthropomorphize," I see no way to distinguish what you're talking about. And you're obviously talking about something a lot larger than simple avoidance of unwarranted anthropomorphism, or it wouldn't take nearly as long to express.

truethat

15th July 2008, 10:33 AM

Pardon my crude summation, but I think you are saying myth is a language used that resonants with a person on a particular level.
I see a strong parrallel in this definition to that of the Supreme Court's view of Obscenity.
pardon the elipsis, I can't find the full untrunctated quote.

This definition is, in some ways, acceptable for obscenity, because 1.) Obscenity changes with the times and 2.) it requires a pattern recognition.

And I think your classification of mythology is a pattern recognition classification. This isn't a bad thing, rather quite a complex/advanced view.

Humans are extremely good at pattern recognition. We are able to view/understand a set of ideas and recognize patterns that fit in with other things of our experience. We are able to, quite rapidly, define things into categorical bins: obscene/not obscene, Myth/not myth, sprial galaxy/lenticular galaxy/elliptical/irregular/other.

On the other hand, computers are quite terrible (still) at doing this type of binning. It requires a series of "fuzzy" assumptions and blurring of distinctions to see the whole pattern. The Computer could count the number of tress, but can't tell you about the forest. In fact, scienctists have started taking advantage of humans natural capacity for pattern recognition in the categorizing galaxies from photos. (I can't find the ref right now)

Now, the problem with our ability to do pattern recognition is that it is extremely easy to see a pattern and make a false classification. We can look at a tree, and see a face in the bark. We can make out a castle in the clouds. But these observed patterns do not reflect the reality of what is being observed.

As such, regardless of how arbitrary the definitions may be, we must define the categories and apply tests to see if what we observe is indeed what we claim to see.
For a face to be a face, It should have 2 eyes, a nose a mouth. That tree doesn't have those things, it has a knot of wood a circular scar and some loose bark. while, those things look like they come together as a face, it isn't a face.

Note that these definitions are extremely difficult and vague. A face could have 1 eye. A face could have no nose. We've seen examplse of people with faces such as those. So we must be willing to be a bit flexable in making our tests. We could apply multiple definitions for face and see how many work. If they don't, then it seems clear that what we observed isn't a face at all.

In this regard, yes, evolutionary theory and the Big bang thoery have elements which give the pattern of myth. After all, they attempt to address fundemental questions that many myths try to address, "Why are we here?" "Why are we different from other things?" "HOw did all this come to be?"

But this is really only a type of Pareidolia. The evolutionary theory, unlike myths, is testable and supported by all observed evidence. It is impossible to discuss it's implications without sounding mythical, but sounding mythical and being a myth are not the same thing. We must gaurd ourselves against seeing the face in the tree and therefore believing that the tree was once a person.

Bingo!!! I think you are the only one who actually understands what I am saying!! :j1:

The Surpreme Court Quote is actually a brilliant comparison.

Originally Posted by ~ Justice Potter Stewart, in Jacobellis Vs. Ohio, Jun 22, 1964
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material ... but I know it when I see it."

This is a perfect quote for what I'm saying. Thank you. MYTH is something that is very difficult to explain to people. I started using the term "Narrative Language" trying to circumvent the knee jerk reaction that typically comes of me starting this kind of conversation.

I am pleased that it worked as well as it did in order to get around the hostility that usually gets thrown at me. Normally the first post in this thread would have been pounced on by about 20 other pissed off Creationist haters and I would have been accused of being a "closet creationist" which happened several times in this thread as you can see.

However as Roboramma has pointed out everyone has been pretty cool and open minded so I bow to you all in appreciation!.

Now as to the Pareidolia, that's a very good explanation of your disagreement and I really think it makes sense. But I think its wrong. Here's why.

Although I do agree with you that I could be listening with over sensitive ears to the stories being told, that's not what has got me thinking and worrying that this science is heading off course.

Its not just the story, narrative or mythic language. Its actually the reaction to the stories and they way people are behaving.

As has been pointed out, mythological stories about Dinosaurs are enormously popular with the public, That kind of draw is because its striking a resonance on a deeper level of the human psyche.

The second, and the most significant reason that I feel this is turning way of modern myth is that people get really seriously angry when people question this story. This is what is turning it into a sacred story.

Myth is more fantastic than sacred history but sacred history may have an element of the fantastic to it (cf. text: top, p. 201). Intent: myths attempt to explain origins or tell of events before or outside of historical time (myth is intent to explain phenomena - natural and social - prior to the insights of science). Myths often tell of the exploits of gods or demons in other realms beyond the world we live in. Myths often tell of a world much different from that in which we live.
http://www.nvcc.edu/home/lshulman/Rel100/100-07.htm

The idea that people are up in arms about others not accepting the origins that Evolution leads back to, that is single cell organisms, or Big Bang or whatnot, there is a desire to understand, WHO WE ARE. To explain the unexplainable "How did we get here"

There's really no point to this. We will never ever know the real answer no matter how much evidence we pile together it will never be known, save for the invention of a time machine.

So the desire to come up with the "story" that explains our origins, the animosity directed at people who question the story. Those TWO combinations alone smack of myth and the way myth hits the deepest part of the psyche to the degree that people actually get violent if you start questioning the story.

You can see it anywhere on the internet. Don't believe me? Go start a thread on a site, not just a science site or a religious site, go start a thread on any site anywhere and just write this.

"I've been reading up on some of the developments in the Evolutionary field, and I have to say I am skeptical about some of the claims. I don't believe we can ever really know how we got here."

Just post that and watch the vitriol come out. You'll note that the statement could mean ANYTHING and it doesn't doubt evolution but you will automatically be assumed to be a Creationist and called an idiot.

So its not just the stories themselves that have caused me to become worried. Its the highly emotional reaction to questioning the story. Especially for skeptical inquiry. And I don't think this is really a problem right now, but I do think it will be in a few years if we don't pay attention to how its going off course.

Shhhh I'll do it here, don't blow my cover.

joobz

15th July 2008, 10:51 AM

Bingo!!! I think you are the only one who actually understands what I am saying!! :j1:

The Surpreme Court Quote is actually a brilliant comparison.

This is a perfect quote for what I'm saying. Thank you. MYTH is something that is very difficult to explain to people. I started using the term "Narrative Language" trying to circumvent the knee jerk reaction that typically comes of me starting this kind of conversation.

thank you.

I understand your concern about the theory becoming mythical to people. And this may happen for some. I really do not know exactly what percentage of people who fit into that category.

However, I do not think a display of anger at evolutionary criticisms is an accurate litmus test for the mythical status of evolutionary theory.

Anger for most people on this forum(at least for me) stems from the repetitive, dishonest nature of many of the anti-evolutionary critiques. Most of the creationist based critiques have well reasoned and long standing rebutals. these rebutals are never addressed. Evidence is continually ignored, which brings about a strong sense of frustration. This can has a sensitizing effect on people so that they greet any new person's critique of evolution with hostility.

I like to call this the citizen cane effect.
L4hrP4Y_8UM

paximperium

15th July 2008, 10:51 AM

We're not talking about academia. We're talking about how it is presented to the public.

BTW I really tire of the paranoid sense that comes out of people not wanting to concede points made, that behind every criticism of the BIG IDEA is a warrior creationist.

Its really paranoid in my opinion. How in the world did we get to the point that merely QUESTIONING something on a message board gets you labled?

I will not speak for others but here's an anecdotal example from my experience.
In an open forum that deals with science, about 8/10 people who question evolution are Creationists. Of this number a number, say 3/10 ,are the "secret creationists" types.

In atheistic forums, nearly 100%(with the exception of a few New Agers) are Creationists and over half are the "secret Creationists" who often start a thread with "I'm not a Creationists" or "I accept evolution but...".

While it is no excuse at the attacks you have received, please pardon the suspicion at the broken trust that has occurred so many times. Your opening statement was also poorly worded and had...BIG BANG, the classic Creationist propaganda tool, as an example of myths.

PS: I find using loaded words like "heresy" insulting.

rocketdodger

15th July 2008, 10:56 AM

I'm not debating a Creationist. I wouldn't waste my breath. I don't understand why people get all revved up at the idea of debating a Creationist. To me its childish and betrays a bully attitude of sorts. It reminds me of debating with a child whether or not the tooth fairy exists. Who is the bigger fool? The child who believes in the tooth fairy or the grown up who spends two hours trying to prove to the child that the fairy doesn't exist?

That would be a fair point, if not for the fact that creationists are 1) adults and 2) we are forced to interact with them because they are also a part of society and 3) their incorrect beliefs have a very real negative effect on many secular activities across the globe.

Civilized Worm

15th July 2008, 11:20 AM

Right there you have just, probably unwittingly, proven my point re: McCarthyism.

How does that prove your point? You ARE a creationist and you DO use creationist propaganda. As for lying I'm still trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Could you please defend, explain or support this claim of yours?

Why should he support his claim for you when you keep refusing to support your own claims?

truethat

15th July 2008, 11:31 AM

I think what you are missing all three of you is that its absolutely insane to get that upset that someone has a different opinion from you. The Citizen Kane concept is funny to some degree but when you put the context into Muslim Terrorists or people like the Westboro Baptist Church its not so funny any more is it?

The idea that people feel justified in being violent towards people who disagree with them or have a different opinion, is scare in my opinion.

As far as heresy goes, you call this a "loaded word" but I used the term as it is defined.

her·e·sy (hr-s)
n. pl. her·e·sies
1.
a. An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.
b. Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.
2.
a. A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science.
b. Adherence to such controversial or unorthodox opinion.

The fact that you are not able to see that you expect people to tip toe around on egg shells and "watch what they say" as justification for what?

Why do we need to do that in order to avoid being attacked?

And additionally the first post on the thread was so knee jerk that it just automatically assumed I said I "believed" in Evolution when I did not, so what I see is people not reading but feeling that they have a right to attack someone from the starting gate if they happen to be a creationist voicing an opinion. You suggest that if you catch someone being a Creationist that its ok to attack them and apologize to me for mistaking me for the "enemy" so to speak. Its a little bizarre to say the least.

This is to me a lot like Muslim Fanatics and Christian fundamentalists, its paranoid and emotionally unstable.

Civilized Worm

15th July 2008, 11:45 AM

Yeah, when evolutionists start suicide bombing creationist museums let me know. :rolleyes:

truethat

15th July 2008, 11:47 AM

Oh I see, its only a problem when its suicide bombing. LOL. Well that's your boundary. Mine is simply examining where its crossed over into not being about science any more.

Lithrael

15th July 2008, 11:50 AM

I think what you are missing all three of you is that its absolutely insane to get that upset that someone has a different opinion from you.

It's NOT about the opinion, it's about the humongous and obnoxious precedent of dishonest tactics used to argue in support of the opinion. 3,477 times bitten, twice shy. I agree it's not fair to assume every 'hay I was wondering about evolution' poster is a Creationist in disguise. But people just get tired of assuming the best after a while.

When people come in and ask a SPECIFIC and REAL question, rather than waffle or c&p from Creationist websites, and appear to actually pay attention to the answers, it all comes up roses pretty quick.

The idea that people feel justified in being violent towards people who disagree with them or have a different opinion, is scare in my opinion.

Violent? What did I miss?

And you honestly think 'heresy' doesn't have an inflammatory connotation?

Civilized Worm

15th July 2008, 11:52 AM

Oh I see, its only a problem when its suicide bombing. LOL. Well that's your boundary. Mine is simply examining where its crossed over into not being about science any more.

It's about the truth. Pardon us if we get frustrated by those who spread lies.

paximperium

15th July 2008, 11:56 AM

I think what you are missing all three of you is that its absolutely insane to get that upset that someone has a different opinion from you.
I don't get upset over people with a difference of opinion, I get upset over dishonesty and people using lies to further their agendas. The "secret Creationist" are not hated because of difference of opinion, they are hated because they lie and wasted our time. An out and out Creationist in a forum will often be insulted BUT many such as myself will debate them politely as long as they remain honest.

I don't bother debating "stealth creationists", its not worth my time or effort talking to someone so fundamentally dishonest and gutless. I insult them for fun.

BTW: You will get upset if Anti-Mythologists make up stories, are completely ignorant , lie and attempt to pass legislation to force their "alternative" to Mythology into classrooms and schools...and yeah, you mythologist caused the Holocaust and Eugenics.

The idea that people feel justified in being violent towards people who disagree with them or have a different opinion, is scare in my opinion.

Violence? Another loaded word? Care to provide any examples of this violence. If you mean disdain then yes. See above.

As far as heresy goes, you call this a "loaded word" but I used the term as it is defined.
Which continues to be a loaded word and just poisons the discussion.

The fact that you are not able to see that you expect people to tip toe around on egg shells and "watch what they say" as justification for what?

Why do we need to do that in order to avoid being attacked?
I'm not going to apologize for the actions of others.

You suggest that if you catch someone being a Creationist that its ok to attack them and apologize to me for mistaking me for the "enemy" so to speak. Its a little bizarre to say the least.
Actually it is. A secret Creationist is dishonest and sets up a false pretense for a discussion. This completely discredits them. Anything they say from then onward is tainted by their dishonesty.
An "out of the closet" Creationists are at least honest. I treat them politely until they start to lie.

This is to me a lot like Muslim Fanatics and Christian fundamentalists, its paranoid and emotionally unstable.
Nope. The equivalent would be a fundie terrorist coming into your atheist meetings, pretending to be an atheist and then setting of a bomb. It is something that has happened many times, so why shouldn't we be wary?

Roboramma

15th July 2008, 11:56 AM

I think what you are missing all three of you is that its absolutely insane to get that upset that someone has a different opinion from you. The Citizen Kane concept is funny to some degree but when you put the context into Muslim Terrorists or people like the Westboro Baptist Church its not so funny any more is it?
I agree with you completely - it isn't justifiable to attack people just because we're frustrated with seeing the same arguments over and over, or by people failing to actually engage in discussion. I mean that sincerely - every new person that we talk to should be treated as such, rather than held in contempt because of the behavior of someone in the past.

I don't think joobz point was to justify such attacks. It seem to me (and anyway, the point I would make) that he was saying that regardless of whether such attacks are justified or not, they aren't a result of the mythologizing of evolution. They are the result of people being frustrated.

Personally I think he's right.

The fact that you are not able to see that you expect people to tip toe around on egg shells and "watch what they say" as justification for what?

Why do we need to do that in order to avoid being attacked? Again, I agree. I'd even go so far as to say that a large number of "creationists" are naive ones - that is, they are creationists because they aren't aware of the evidence, or have been convinced by religion and simply haven't learned more. They are curious, and not agenda driven, and for those people the best way to deal with them is to actually have a conversation with them, listen to their concerns, and address them. In the process we might even learn something.
Many of my friends fit in that category, and it bothers me when people like that are treated as though they are necessarily agenda driven.
Of course, the ones who have an agenda tend to be more vocal. It's also true that it's hard to tell someone with an agenda from someone without one. For me, that's all the more reason to treat everyone as though they don't have an agenda, until they themselves make that agenda clear, rather than the other way around.

When I say "agenda driven" by the way, I mean those who are willfully dishonest about the science and their motivations for questioning it, and who refuse to engage in an actual discussion.
Such people certainly exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy).

truethat

15th July 2008, 12:00 PM

I don't get upset over people with a difference of opinion, I get upset over dishonesty and people using lies to further their agendas. The "secret Creationist" are not hated because of difference of opinion, they are hated because they lie and wasted our time. An out and out Creationist in a forum will often be insulted BUT many such as myself will debate them politely as long as they remain honest.

I don't bother debating "stealth creationists", its not worth my time or effort talking to someone so fundamentally dishonest and gutless. I insult them for fun.

BTW: You will get upset if Anti-Mythologists make up stories, are completely ignorant , lie and attempt to pass legislation to force their "alternative" to Mythology into classrooms and schools...and yeah, you mythologist caused the Holocaust and Eugenics.

Violence? Another loaded word? Care to provide any examples of this violence. If you mean disdain then yes. See above.

Which continues to be a loaded word and just poisons the discussion.

I'm not going to apologize for the actions of others.

Actually it is. A secret Creationist is dishonest and sets up a false pretense for a discussion. This completely discredits them. Anything they say from then onward is tainted by their dishonesty.
An "out of the closet" Creationists are at least honest. I treat them politely until they start to lie.

Nope. The equivalent would be a fundie terrorist coming into your atheist meetings, pretending to be an atheist and then setting of a bomb. It is something that has happened many times, so why shouldn't we be wary?

What bomb is set off? What threat is there that has you so frightened. Its just a dingbat with an opinion.

Sorry but none of what you wrote makes ANY sense to me. :redface1

truethat

15th July 2008, 12:10 PM

I agree with you completely - it isn't justifiable to attack people just because we're frustrated with seeing the same arguments over and over, or by people failing to actually engage in discussion. I mean that sincerely - every new person that we talk to should be treated as such, rather than held in contempt because of the behavior of someone in the past.

I don't think joobz point was to justify such attacks. It seem to me (and anyway, the point I would make) that he was saying that regardless of whether such attacks are justified or not, they aren't a result of the mythologizing of evolution. They are the result of people being frustrated.Personally I think he's right.

Again, I agree. I'd even go so far as to say that a large number of "creationists" are naive ones - that is, they are creationists because they aren't aware of the evidence, or have been convinced by religion and simply haven't learned more. They are curious, and not agenda driven, and for those people the best way to deal with them is to actually have a conversation with them, listen to their concerns, and address them.

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?

I don't believe this is just about misinformation and Creationist agendas, frankly its not the end of the world if children are not taught evolution in schools is it? I mean we can teach the bare essentials of scientific method and go from there?

I'm still not understanding what the "big threat" is, yes some Creationsits are total nut jobs, but where is this war coming from? Its coming from Science stepping into the fray.

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.

joobz

15th July 2008, 12:17 PM

paximperium

15th July 2008, 12:18 PM

To bad you don't get that people dislike dishonest debaters.

So why are we angry at Creationists? Because they are anti-science and a threat to education. Is that a good enough reason? Why isn't that a good reason?

I'm still not understanding what the "big threat" is, yes some Creationsits are total nut jobs, but where is this war coming from? Its coming from Science stepping into the fray.

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.
This war is coming from Creationist who are attempting to force their religious beliefs into schools and universities by passing laws. Science did not pay notice until recently and now we are way behind them as they force their beliefs into schools and into laws.

BTW, it isn't only biologists but cosmologist, geologists and whole multitude of other fields that see the threat of the anti-science belief system that is Creationism.

rocketdodger

15th July 2008, 12:20 PM

You can see it anywhere on the internet. Don't believe me? Go start a thread on a site, not just a science site or a religious site, go start a thread on any site anywhere and just write this.

"I've been reading up on some of the developments in the Evolutionary field, and I have to say I am skeptical about some of the claims. I don't believe we can ever really know how we got here."

Just post that and watch the vitriol come out. You'll note that the statement could mean ANYTHING and it doesn't doubt evolution but you will automatically be assumed to be a Creationist and called an idiot.

Thats because nobody would make a post like that unless they were looking for an argument. When there is a field as studied as evolutionary biology, you don't make a sweeping statement like "I am skeptical of some of the claims..." without qualifying it. Otherwise, yes, people will assume you are either an idiot or uneducated.

JoeTheJuggler

15th July 2008, 12:24 PM

truethat

15th July 2008, 12:29 PM

To bad you don't get that people dislike dishonest debaters.

So why are we angry at Creationists? Because they are anti-science and a threat to education. Is that a good enough reason? Why isn't that a good reason?

This war is coming from Creationist who are attempting to force their religious beliefs into schools and universities by passing laws. Science did not pay notice until recently and now we are way behind them as they force their beliefs into schools and into laws.

BTW, it isn't only biologists but cosmologist, geologists and whole multitude of other fields that see the threat of the anti-science belief system that is Creationism.

I'm sorry but I'm not really that threatened by them. I think they creep me out from time to time but I'm really not all that bothered by my kids not learning about evolution or what not in public school. I know what public school education is like and the "threat" as you put it, is the least of their worries.

I think its strange that you don't see how whacked out what you wrote is. Its seriously disturbing to me to see what you wrote.

I'm just taking it with a grain of salt of course and I don't mean to put you down or attack you, I'm sure you don't mean to come across this way but holy CRAP. Can you imagine saying this out loud to someone? Sheesh.

Also the Kids in the Hall clip was quite funny. I didn't take that as a threat of violence or anything but take that knife in the hand and turn the sound down on the video and read the post that paxi just said and read it outloud with gusto as a soundtrack to the stabbing and you can see why it'd be a little unnerving.

rocketdodger

15th July 2008, 12:32 PM

I don't believe this is just about misinformation and Creationist agendas, frankly its not the end of the world if children are not taught evolution in schools is it? I mean we can teach the bare essentials of scientific method and go from there?

Then what? Would religious parents play along and stop vomiting creationist nonsense all over their gullible children as well? No, they would not. Religion doesn't play fair.

truethat

15th July 2008, 12:37 PM

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.

truethat

15th July 2008, 12:42 PM

Then what? Would religious parents play along and stop vomiting creationist nonsense all over their gullible children as well? No, they would not. Religion doesn't play fair.

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.

paximperium

15th July 2008, 12:45 PM

I'm sorry but I'm not really that threatened by them. I think they creep me out from time to time but I'm really not all that bothered by my kids not learning about evolution or what not in public school. I know what public school education is like and the "threat" as you put it, is the least of their worries.

I think its strange that you don't see how whacked out what you wrote is. Its seriously disturbing to me to see what you wrote.

I'm just taking it with a grain of salt of course and I don't mean to put you down or attack you, I'm sure you don't mean to come across this way but holy CRAP. Can you imagine saying this out loud to someone? Sheesh.

Also the Kids in the Hall clip was quite funny. I didn't take that as a threat of violence or anything but take that knife in the hand and turn the sound down on the video and read the post that paxi just said and read it outloud with gusto as a soundtrack to the stabbing and you can see why it'd be a little unnerving.

Actually I find your dismissal of my worries and complaints about science education itself worrying. Describing it as "whacked out" shows that you have an inherent double standard in this specific argument. You consider frustration and anger towards Creationists who are forcing a religious belief into education by passing laws, as "disturbing"?

If you don't care about science education, that's your business but there are people who care about the welfare of education.

PS: Your continued mocking tone about insinuating "violence" coming from pro-science folk is very insulting.

joobz

15th July 2008, 12:59 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?science wouldn't care. religious people feel threatened by what science is stating and that is the origin of this problem.

I don't believe this is just about misinformation and Creationist agendas, frankly its not the end of the world if children are not taught evolution in schools is it? I mean we can teach the bare essentials of scientific method and go from there?
Actually, it would be the end of science education as we know it. Evolution is a central pillar to what we know of biology. It would be like teaching physics without F=ma. It would be like teaching math without teaching division. It would be like teaching english without teaching grammar.

What you suggest amounts to not teaching science at all. I sincerely hope you don't mean to advocate a policy of a nation of people ignorant of science.

I'm still not understanding what the "big threat" is, yes some Creationsits are total nut jobs, but where is this war coming from? Its coming from Science stepping into the fray.
Science is under attack in this country. You see this from multiple fronts and it's result is a decreased number of people entering science, technology or math disciplines in college. America's prosperity has been in large part due to the enginuty and skill of our science and engineers. Weakening this aspect of our workforce will only serve to weaken america on the world stage. This is already being seen with the outsourcing of tech jobs to other countries who are more skilled than americans and work for cheaper.

So, it is a big deal.
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.
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."

truethat

15th July 2008, 01:02 PM

drkitten

15th July 2008, 01:03 PM

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.

Is there? How do you figure this?

Let me give a specific example. The average age of entering medical (school) students in the USA is 23 and change. Since the average age of graduating seniors in the USA is actually slightly larger than 23 and change, and the average age for graduating from public high schools is 18 and change, that doesn't leave a lot of opportunities for potential doctors to learn enough biology to get into medical school.

Basically, just long enough to complete a college-level biology degree. Which, ironically enough, requires a reasonable background of biology in high school. Which the creationists are working to systematically undermine. Every student who walks into college without understanding (or even worse, actively disbelieving) the theory of evolution is a student who will have to take remedial biology in order even to begin study of biology --- and is a student who will probably not be able to complete medical school requirements. Not to put too fine a point on it, but every creationist is directly acting to reduce the availability of medical care available to both you and I in twenty years.

Science education is part of my retirement plan. It should be part of yours as well. I like the idea that we'll be able to grow replacement organs for when mine begin to fail....

truethat

15th July 2008, 01:08 PM

science wouldn't care. religious people feel threatened by what science is stating and that is the origin of this problem.

Actually, it would be the end of science education as we know it. Evolution is a central pillar to what we know of biology. It would be like teaching physics without F=ma. It would be like teaching math without teaching division. It would be like teaching english without teaching grammar.

What you suggest amounts to not teaching science at all. I sincerely hope you don't mean to advocate a policy of a nation of people ignorant of science.

Science is under attack in this country. You see this from multiple fronts and it's result is a decreased number of people entering science, technology or math disciplines in college. America's prosperity has been in large part due to the enginuty and skill of our science and engineers. Weakening this aspect of our workforce will only serve to weaken america on the world stage. This is already being seen with the outsourcing of tech jobs to other countries who are more skilled than americans and work for cheaper.

So, it is a big deal.

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!!!

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.

Science isn't under attack. Evolution is under attack. Teaching scientific method is more important to me than teaching evolution.

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.

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.

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.

truethat

15th July 2008, 01:11 PM

Is there? How do you figure this?

Let me give a specific example. The average age of entering medical (school) students in the USA is 23 and change. Since the average age of graduating seniors in the USA is actually slightly larger than 23 and change, and the average age for graduating from public high schools is 18 and change, that doesn't leave a lot of opportunities for potential doctors to learn enough biology to get into medical school.

Basically, just long enough to complete a college-level biology degree. Which, ironically enough, requires a reasonable background of biology in high school. Which the creationists are working to systematically undermine. Every student who walks into college without understanding (or even worse, actively disbelieving) the theory of evolution is a student who will have to take remedial biology in order even to begin study of biology --- and is a student who will probably not be able to complete medical school requirements. Not to put too fine a point on it, but every creationist is directly acting to reduce the availability of medical care available to both you and I in twenty years.

Science education is part of my retirement plan. It should be part of yours as well. I like the idea that we'll be able to grow replacement organs for when mine begin to fail....

Most people going to school are not going to become doctors. You seem to suggest that education can only occurr in that window of opportunity that exists when the school doors open.

I mean seriously you honestly suggest that high school biology lays any sort of groundwork for being a doctor? When is the last time you were in a public high school?

I'm serious when I say that its over hyped. I do think its important and I do agree that if you want to be a doctor you should have a strong science education. But beyond that, really I don't think its that big of a deal.

drkitten

15th July 2008, 01:13 PM

Science isn't under attack. Evolution is under attack. Teaching scientific method is more important to me than teaching evolution.

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.

truethat

15th July 2008, 01:17 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.

Next, I used to get irritated that kids no longer go to libraries to do research. I was annoyed that they just cruised the internet. But now with sites like Questia.com you can access entire libraries and go to the specific page you want.

I realized how weird this was when I was writing my thesis and left one of the books at the library without citing it. So I looked it up on Questia, and I realized I was basically not accepting the way the world is changing.

I would argue that most kids get a better education off the internet than they do in the schools. I used to think poorly of homeschooling until I realized what kids have access to nowadays online.

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.

drkitten

15th July 2008, 01:18 PM

Most people going to school are not going to become doctors.

Yes. But all people who become doctors go to school.

You seem to suggest that education can only occurr in that window of opportunity that exists when the school doors open.

I do not. But it's hard enough to get education to occur when what happens in that window is not actively opposed to education.

I mean seriously you honestly suggest that high school biology lays any sort of groundwork for being a doctor?

Um, yes? When is the last time you visited a doctor who didn't take science in high school?

When is the last time you were in a public high school?

When was the last time you were in a university, looking at the background of incoming first-year students?

If you don't have a good science background, you're not getting into the science departments. The fact that most people don't go this route doesn't mean that we don't need the few who do --- in fact, it makes it all the more urgent to preserve those few.

I'm serious when I say that its over hyped.

It's possible to be serious and tragically wrong at the same time, unfortunately.

I do think its important and I do agree that if you want to be a doctor you should have a strong science education.

But evidently you think that people can pick "strong science educations" off trees? Order them from Amazon? Find them at the bottoms of breakfast cereal boxes? If not in school, where do you expect them to be come from?

paximperium

15th July 2008, 01:18 PM

Paxi you are the one is being angry and violent

Its not that I don't care about science education. I was a science educator. But I know damn well that they aren't going to be teaching religion in schools any time soon. Criticizing evolution and suggesting that some people see reason to believe in Intelligent Design, is not THAT big of a deal to me.

The truth is we don't know how we got here, we don't know if Big Bang happened with the urging of some intelligent creature that floats through the universe like invisible whales floating through the sea.

We don't really know do we and we'll never know. Stating that "some people believe life was formed by an inteliigent being is a statement of FACT" because most people on the planet do believe this.

I believe they are wrong, but pointing out that people believe this is not frighting to me at all.

I think why so many Creationist types fight against the education in the schools is because of the narrative language. Like the are angry that they are replacing their story with another one. So that's why I said I think it only causes problems unnecessarily.

I'm not saying that I don't like Creationists and what they do from time to time. And sometimes I really hate what they do. But this blanket paranoia that you need to steel up against the war, well its a bit much don't you think?
I see nothing wrong with this position, however I find your apathy...well more a disdain towards those who see Creationism as a threat to be a very bias position.

I don't see treating this current battle for science education as a serious "war" an exaggeration.
Oh yeah, when I meant war:
war1 Audio Help /wɔr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wawr] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, warred, war·ring, adjective
–noun
1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3. a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4. active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.
5. aggressive business conflict, as through severe price cutting in the same industry or any other means of undermining competitors: a fare war among airlines; a trade war between nations.
6. a struggle: a war for men's minds; a war against poverty.
7. armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.
8. Cards.
a. a game for two or more persons, played with a 52-card pack evenly divided between the players, in which each player turns up one card at a time with the higher card taking the lower, and in which, when both turned up cards match, each player lays one card face down and turns up another, the player with the higher card of the second turn taking all the cards laid down.
b. an occasion in this game when both turned up cards match.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=war&x=0&y=0

and yes, I'm being sarcastic.

Also you seem to have distorted versions of words. When I say violent I mean this

You are extreme in your emotional intensity in response. That's what I mean.
Extreme emotions? Maybe I am coming of as that in an online discussion although I'm just chilling here reading a paper with a cup of tea in hand.

If that is what you mean by "violent", I'm fine with that BUT you are using purposefully loaded words no matter the actual meaning. You seem to play very loose with your word choice but Violence has many more meaning than what you are using it as and a loaded word like violent is specifically directed at making an opponent seem unreasonable and irrational.