| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
|
Dear All— WOW! Having just returned from a holiday, I
opened my email and found amazing and energetic discussions on evolution, the
role of medicine in science and our decline in societal memberships. I think that this clearly shows the all-too-obvious
connection between these topics.
That is: how our society sees Science (with a big S) and how they view
paleontology. While our
own scientific colleagues may love dinosaurs from a romantic point of view, how
many of them would be willing to generate a position in vertebrate
paleontology…..or to keep one for that matter, after a retirement? (see Roy
Plotnick’s posting about the UI position attrition) To me, the variance in science in general, and paleontology
in particular, has increased and those once trained in classical paleontology
are now trained in geochemistry or geobiology. In other
words, it seems that our science is shifting, but our models stay the
same. People don’t see the
relevance of paleontology because a) we don’t do a good enough job making
ourselves relevant, b) we don’t communicate well-enough amongst ourselves (with
the possible exception of this listserv) and c) we don’t know where we are
going with our discipline (which, by the way….is under siege by creationists,
particularly at the K-12 level, and we do not even realize it). Thus, we find our numbers declining,
like the bison in North America reported on in this week’s Science (sorry…no
musk oxen….they were bison, which are related…..through evolution……if you “believe”
in that). If people don’t see the
relevance of talking about this from a theoretical standpoint, maybe they will
from a practical one. That is….we
are losing numbers, but gaining in popularity among the kiddies. Why? Maybe we
need to step back and look at the larger picture. Our young, emerging paleontologists will live in a different
world. What kind of world will
that be? Will the paleodatabase
dominate our science? Will
something else? What questions do
we have that are relevant to those in our own field, those in other fields and
those in the general public? This
time last year an ostracod made international news (believe it or not) because
it was the first recorded male reproductive organ, and last month, the pigmy H.
erectus was reported from Indonesia.
These are things that people seem to care about. But why? I think we
need to start asking ourselves: since science is a dynamic endeavor, are we
adapting to the times? Are we changing the landscape? Or are we just
desperately trying to keep up? To me,
these issues are all so intricately interrelated that it boggles the mind. Respectfully, Lisa ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr.
Lisa E. Park, Associate Professor Department
of Geology Crouse
Hall 252
Buchtel Commons University
of Akron Akron,
OH 44325-4101 USA 001-330-972-7633
(phone) 001-330-972-7611
(fax) lepark@uakron.edu Damnant
quod non intelligunt (they
condemn what they do not understand) -----Original
Message----- Most
Doctors (and all lawyers) are just technicians in their fields. They
cannot be truly said to have a scientific approach and are net consumers of
knowledge, not generators. This is
the only way to explain "creationist" medical practitioners. The
fact that someone has a degree in a Medical field is improperly used by
creationists as an appeal to authority. -----
Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, November 23,
2004 10:57 PM Subject:
paleonet Doctors and Evolution
|
Partial index: