Re: Mysteries of NBC programming

From
Date


|TomDeVrie@aol.com wrote:

...
|To define science from a theoretical standpoint will  dilute the message
|for most high school students.  I endorse Paul Belanger's solution: 

|demonstrate by example, in front of a lay audience (like my classroom).

	I agree completely, and I can not think of a better example than  
the "human" footprint.  I mean, a person walking across the beach could  
see the many imperfections that demonstrate it is not human (e.g., the  
lack of an arch).  It is obviously a carving, and it does not take a  
scientist, let alone an ichnologist, to recognize how laughably poor a  
carving it is.  It is little better than a surrealistic piece of art.  One  
could even get some students to walk across sand, mud, or plaster as a  
demonstration of the difference :-)


|Repeated exposure to legitimate scientific inquiry in local newspapers,
|magazines, local TV stations, classrooms, and public lectures will
|establish the boundaries of accepted scientific practice and subject
|matter.  Show how ideas are considered, given credence, tested, or
|rejected.

	That is the part that gets me.  Half this "suppressed" evidence  
*has* been considered by scientists anyway, even given its dubious  
quality.  The Paluxy "man tracks" are again a perfect example.  There is  
ample scientific literature on them (e.g., in Gillette and Lockley's book  
on dinosaur tracks), and it constrasts strongly in quality of presentation  
with the pseudoscientific publications.  It would be interesting to hand  
people both types of documentation in a big pile, have them sort through  
it, and make an assessment.  The scary part is, people are often unlikely  
to have enough interest to do some investigation beyond watching the NBC  
program, and sometimes pretty-coloured animations are more compelling than  
hard data :-(

|Scientists might also engage in a little pseudoscience bashing
|in public, to help define those boundaries.

	I do not think it is necessary to actively "bash" pseudoscience in  
public so much as goad people into finding out things for themselves and  
being critical.  If people are simply motivated to *look* instead of just  
accepting things, they will figure it out.  There is no point in replacing  
blind acceptance of one interpretation with blind acceptance of another,  
even if it happens to be the best scientific explanation currently  
available.




	-Andrew
	macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca
	home page: http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae