Comments on: The First of Four (!) Books on Science Communication http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/ Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:28:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: John A. Davison http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25545 John A. Davison Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:14:31 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25545 As usual I am wasting my time here. Enjoy yourselves, whoever you are. jdavison.wordpress.com As usual I am wasting my time here. Enjoy yourselves, whoever you are.

jdavison.wordpress.com

]]> By: John Kwok http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25544 John Kwok Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:51:04 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25544 @ Screechy Monkey and Davo - Olson grew up in Kansas, so he never had the chance to study at my high school or undergraduate alma maters. As for his speciality, I think he was a marine invertebrate biologist specializing in reproductive biology (He was "eminent" enough to be cited by a lot of people back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.). @ Screechy Monkey and Davo -

Olson grew up in Kansas, so he never had the chance to study at my high school or undergraduate alma maters. As for his speciality, I think he was a marine invertebrate biologist specializing in reproductive biology (He was “eminent” enough to be cited by a lot of people back in the late 1980s and early 1990s.).

]]> By: Marion Delgado http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25543 Marion Delgado Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:00:35 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25543 Every venue is a chance to communicate, hence: The origin of species comes not from chance (which, from a fairly limited palette of random mutations, will occur) alone, but from natural selection. Anything else is not in fact the position of evolutionary biologists since Darwin and Wallace. Anyone claiming it is either attempting to deceive others, or is themself deceived. Every venue is a chance to communicate, hence:

The origin of species comes not from chance (which, from a fairly limited palette of random mutations, will occur) alone, but from natural selection.

Anything else is not in fact the position of evolutionary biologists since Darwin and Wallace. Anyone claiming it is either attempting to deceive others, or is themself deceived.

]]> By: Davo http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25542 Davo Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:27:06 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25542 Invertebrate anatomist, physiologist, taxonomist or paleontologist? Could you be more specific? Invertebrate anatomist, physiologist, taxonomist or paleontologist? Could you be more specific?

]]> By: Screechy Monkey http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25541 Screechy Monkey Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:27:43 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25541 "I encourage you to pre-order them" Interesting. It's ok for you to recommend books you haven't read as long as they seem to agree with your view, but not for anyone to criticize you without having read the full book. John Kwok writes: "Randy Olson was an up-and-coming marine invertebrate biologist" But was he an <i>eminent</i> biologist? I only pay attention to <i>eminent</i> scientists. And what high school did he attend? “I encourage you to pre-order them”

Interesting. It’s ok for you to recommend books you haven’t read as long as they seem to agree with your view, but not for anyone to criticize you without having read the full book.

John Kwok writes: “Randy Olson was an up-and-coming marine invertebrate biologist”

But was he an eminent biologist? I only pay attention to eminent scientists. And what high school did he attend?

]]> By: TomJoe http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25540 TomJoe Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:15:35 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25540 Especially looking forward to Cornelia Dean's book. Thanks for mentioning these! Especially looking forward to Cornelia Dean’s book. Thanks for mentioning these!

]]> By: TB http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25539 TB Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:14:49 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25539 Anna K I probably wasn't clear: I wasn't asking whether public science museums should do outreach. I was noting that, since they already engage in public outreach, would it be a good idea if they became a kind of nexus for the kinds of things that Chris and Sheril are proposing - essentially coordinating and focusing the efforts of various institutions. Anna K

I probably wasn’t clear: I wasn’t asking whether public science museums should do outreach. I was noting that, since they already engage in public outreach, would it be a good idea if they became a kind of nexus for the kinds of things that Chris and Sheril are proposing – essentially coordinating and focusing the efforts of various institutions.

]]> By: John A. Davison http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25538 John A. Davison Sun, 26 Jul 2009 14:28:59 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25538 Marc, whoever that is. and I expect that we will never know. Do you really expect anyone to believe that there is no connection between "atheist" and Darwinist? There is no place for "isms" of any sort in science. Darwinists, or if you prefer, Darwinians, are those who believe that it is intrinsic in the nature of nonliving matter to self assemble into living evolving entities. That is the essence of Darwinism and I reject it completely. How any thinking person can embrace the Darwinian model is beyond my comprehension. "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true" Bertrand Russell "An hypothesis does not cease being an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it." Boris Ephrussi jadavison.wordpress.com Marc, whoever that is. and I expect that we will never know.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that there is no connection between “atheist” and Darwinist?

There is no place for “isms” of any sort in science. Darwinists, or if you prefer, Darwinians, are those who believe that it is intrinsic in the nature of nonliving matter to self assemble into living evolving entities. That is the essence of Darwinism and I reject it completely. How any thinking person can embrace the Darwinian model is beyond my comprehension.

“It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true”
Bertrand Russell

“An hypothesis does not cease being an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it.”
Boris Ephrussi

jadavison.wordpress.com

]]> By: Marc http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25537 Marc Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:54:16 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25537 John Davison: "Darwinist" has no causal connection at all with "atheist". We don't call people who accept the theory of gravity "Einsteinists', so Darwinist is a silly turn of phrase. Evolution is the central concept in modern biology. It doesn't rely on chance (chemistry is not random), and so on. The how/why distinction on answering questions is a very important one, and I'm afraid you're confusing the two. John Davison: “Darwinist” has no causal connection at all with “atheist”. We don’t call people who accept the theory of gravity “Einsteinists’, so Darwinist is a silly turn of phrase. Evolution is the central concept in modern biology. It doesn’t rely on chance (chemistry is not random), and so on. The how/why distinction on answering questions is a very important one, and I’m afraid you’re confusing the two.

]]> By: John A. Davison http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25536 John A. Davison Sun, 26 Jul 2009 13:41:43 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/25/the-first-of-four-books-on-science-communication/#comment-25536 The problem is not communication so much as it is congenital predisposition. It is my experience that it is quite imposssible to communicate with the atheist Darwinians just as it is with all other religious fanatics. They all suffer from the same defect. Albert Einstein identified this basis for this syndrome long ago - "Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source...They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres." Like most pure white cats, they are stone deaf and apparently for the same genetic reason. Worse, they are also blind as the proverbial bat to the living world around them, a world in which chance could not possibly have played a major role in its creation. There is nothing that can be done for these poor souls except to laugh at them and dispense with them with - "Don't let this happen to you." It doesn't get any better than this. jadavison.wordpress.com The problem is not communication so much as it is congenital predisposition. It is my experience that it is quite imposssible to communicate with the atheist Darwinians just as it is with all other religious fanatics. They all suffer from the same defect. Albert Einstein identified this basis for this syndrome long ago -

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”

Like most pure white cats, they are stone deaf and apparently for the same genetic reason. Worse, they are also blind as the proverbial bat to the living world around them, a world in which chance could not possibly have played a major role in its creation. There is nothing that can be done for these poor souls except to laugh at them and dispense with them with -

“Don’t let this happen to you.”

It doesn’t get any better than this.

jadavison.wordpress.com

]]>