Science Trivialized by the Internet?

[catbirdseat]

There's always Wikipedia... imagine if DFA and Dwayner had to co-author an essay on the use of bolts in American climbing.

There's a collaboration made in hell!

[Dru]

Actually when two completely opposing viewpoints collaborate to produce a document, the points that both of them can agree on are quite interesting.

[catbirdseat]

What are the sorts of things that DFA and Dwayner might agree on?

[Peter_Puget]

In a preInternet/Cable TV era with fewer sources of information, and perhaps more oblique editorialization, opinion formation resided closer to the individual and his community.

 

Erin Brokavich

[Alpinfox]

We here in Western Washington have some of the finest drinking water available in the 48 states. My water comes from the Cedar River Watershed.

 

And I still cannot fathom why my wife drinks bottled water.

 

How old are the pipes in your house? What kind of pipes?

 

DANGER DANGER DANGER!!! FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!

 

[catbirdseat]

What are the sorts of things that DFA and Dwayner might agree on?

No one's going to bite? How about their favorite color of lycra? Maybe their favorite near beer?

[cj001f]

Not quite the same thing. In this case the dispute is over the facts, whereas with POMO the dispute was/is about whether or not there are "facts." At least people who are using less than sound science agree about the utility and validity of science as a tool for humanity, whereas a great deal of the POMO crew were using a maladaption of literary criticism to dispute the notion that one could ever obtain accurate information about the natural world, and that science was simply a ruse used by white men to codify and reinforce their power in society

 

I was speaking of some of the branchs of PoMo that posit "facts" are all relative to the user and that each of us are equally qualified to evaluate all situations and all of our opinions are equally valid on all subjects. I hear that position espoused in evolution debates.

[JayB]

Not quite the same thing. In this case the dispute is over the facts, whereas with POMO the dispute was/is about whether or not there are "facts." At least people who are using less than sound science agree about the utility and validity of science as a tool for humanity, whereas a great deal of the POMO crew were using a maladaption of literary criticism to dispute the notion that one could ever obtain accurate information about the natural world, and that science was simply a ruse used by white men to codify and reinforce their power in society

 

I was speaking of some of the branchs of PoMo that posit "facts" are all relative to the user and that each of us are equally qualified to evaluate all situations and all of our opinions are equally valid on all subjects. I hear that position espoused in evolution debates.

 

I think that if you follow the course of the debate over the last 100 years or so, what has actually happened is that creationists have gone from dismissing science, to attempting to frame their argument in terms that appear scientific. Most of that happened in 40 years between the Scopes trial and the founding of the Institute for Creation Research in the 1960s (or thereabouts). Intelligent Design is just the latest manifestation of this trend in the US, although the argument that this is based on is at least a couple of thousand years old. (Plato's Demi-urge, etc).

 

A quick look at the graphics and language in most creationist web sites will confirm this,

(http://www.ideacenter.org/about/index.php), as does the fact that virtually every individual cited in pamplets, web-sites, etc - has scientific credentials of some sort that those producing the materials take pains to emphasize in the literature.

[Dru]

Yeah, they emphasize the credentials to make up for the lack of evidence That's one of the classic logical fallacies, appeal to authority.

[cj001f]

I think that if you follow the course of the debate over the last 100 years or so, what has actually happened is that creationists have gone from dismissing science, to attempting to frame their argument in terms that appear scientific. Most of that happened in 40 years between the Scopes trial and the founding of the Institute for Creation Research in the 1960s (or thereabouts). Intelligent Design is just the latest manifestation of this trend in the US, although the argument that this is based on is at least a couple of thousand years old. (Plato's Demi-urge, etc).

 

A quick look at the graphics and language in most creationist web sites will confirm this,

(http://www.ideacenter.org/about/index.php), as does the fact that virtually every individual cited in pamplets, web-sites, etc - has scientific credentials of some sort that those producing the materials take pains to emphasize in the literature.

 

There's a difference between many of the creationist advocacy groups and supporters of creationism. Many of the advocacy groups do utilize scientific, and psedoscientific literature. The supporters don't necessarily, and they are who I was speaking of.

[JayB]

I'd say that's just a coincidental - and unflattering - similarity between POMO and old-fashioned populism IMO.

 

I doubt that anyone's whipping out the Derrida or Foucault at the "Left Behind" series reading groups...

[Stefan]

We here in Western Washington have some of the finest drinking water available in the 48 states. My water comes from the Cedar River Watershed.

 

And I still cannot fathom why my wife drinks bottled water.

 

How old are the pipes in your house? What kind of pipes?

 

DANGER DANGER DANGER!!! FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!

 

 

7 year old house. Many houses are older everywhere else. Why do you think the Cedar River Watershed and Green River Watershed do not have to go through the special purification process that most watersheds have to in the U.S.?

[selkirk]

I imagine because the area's effectively off limits to people. As memory serves isn't seattle water drawn from a watershed that is effectively offlimits to everyone? So I would imagine they're negligible polution, and probably only minor treatment to take care of things like giardia. But don't many cities draw theyre freshwater from major, public rivers?

 

Of course i'm talking out of my ass so just going to shut the hell up now

[catbirdseat]

Some people argue that Seattle's water SHOULD be subject to the same rigorous purification standards applied elsewhere. Although Cedar River water is low in minerals, which is why it tastes good, it can be high in dissolved organics. When chlorine is added it reacts with these to form trihalomethanes, such as chloroform. Filtration would remove or lower levels of organics prior to chlorination, but it is expensive, so Seattle resists implementing it.

[selkirk]

mmmm, organics. Has any one else ever drank the water out in the rainforest? I remember stuff that even after running it through a filter still looked like tea!

[catbirdseat]

Hemlock water. At least it isn't chlorinated.

[Dru]

mmmm, organics. Has any one else ever drank the water out in the rainforest? I remember stuff that even after running it through a filter still looked like tea!

 

That's cause its full of tannins - just like tea.