Posted on 02/13/2008 10:58:23 PM PST by ForGod'sSake
Really? Just for grins I did a Google search using about half a dozen variations on the terms Alaska, bones, mammoth, mastodon, tours, etc. Guess what? But you probably already know the answer -- Zero hits.
Maybe it's just my cynical nature, but I find it curious you responded to an off topic point that would be difficult to nail down - tourism, when I had asked several other what I thought would be more thought provoking questions. Would you mind taking a crack at some of the others from #38? I had asked Coyoteman in a PREVIOUS POST if he would mind sharing with me his thoughts from that particular ONLINE DISCUSSION. It's not that long, and I found it instructive in a couple of ways. Would you be kind enough to take a look and give me your impression???
What’s to discuss after rejecting that?
Understood, yes, sometimes.
But there are two problems.
One is the laypeople don't know all the background, so they might end up wasting time, space, and energy posting specious objections which all the *real* practitioners have discarded a long time ago. Over and over again as n00bs join in. (See any crevo thread on FR for examples).
The other is that laypeople often confuse the issue by not knowing the nomenclature -- it is not an "affectation" in the sciences, as it is in postmodern deconstructive liberal arts; rather the language is used in a specific, quite specialized fashion, unique to the discipline. And people from outside that field often mistake the meaning.
Cheers!
Rejecting what, the tourism thing? Insignificant IMHO and only peripherally related to the discussion in any case.
For one engaged in the scientific pursuits, you sure know how to dance.
In case the analogy was overlooked, the appeal to Google is similar to the appeal to the scientific establishment and is a form of fallacy—the appeal to authority—, in this case a negative result meaning the data or facts are not found in the authority. The alternative explanation of the red shift is not needed and does not explain anything the mainstream explanation overlooks. Van Flandern actually has his creds and fellow PhDs are required to at least pretend to listen to him or were until he retired to pursue his own crackpot schemata.
And yeah, I do understand about the language, hence my small caveat at the end of my rant. A thought occurs to me as I type this, and that is, the system™ is composed of at least three elements: science, academia and of course gubmint. A dangerous threesome if ever there was one. Talk about fighting city hall! Do you suppose we should also add corporate partners to the mix? Wow, a foursome; where's the first tee and what's the course record??? Oh well...
Another BTW, it doesn't appear NatGeo will be joining the chase to explain the significance of the Alaskan(or any other) killing fields of Pleistocene megafauna. They are content(happy?) to buy into the latest PC theory/hypothesis that TUBERCULOSIS GOT 'EM. For my part, I'm thinking gout. After all, the megafauna were all obviously overweight and probably didn't watch their diets. They may have been smokers too. Any bets I could get a paper through the system™?
The search engine doesn't really matter; Google just seems to work the best in my small world. With the proper search phrase(s), I'm usually able to get what I'm looking for within a page or two. I actually went several pages deep into Google with several different search phrases with no luck. Could you recommend a travel agency that might be helpful??? On second thought, don't bother. We're both too busy I'm sure.
The alternative explanation of the red shift is not needed and does not explain anything the mainstream explanation overlooks. Van Flandern actually has his creds and fellow PhDs are required to at least pretend to listen to him or were until he retired to pursue his own crackpot schemata.
Heh. I actually know nothing about Van Flandern, but after a quick Google search, I find he generated a healthy following of skeptics and detractors, particularly in his later career. So, as an added bonus, I'm not surprised. He thought outside the box, to coin a phrase.
The tenor of the discussion I linked was more what I had in mind, which coincidentally follows a similar pattern. The nOOb on the board presents his case, complete with whistles, bells and overhead projection; the old timer(mod?) on the board responds with "conventional wisdom"; that is to say, accepted science™ says it ain't so; so there. The old timer was apparently able to chase the nOOb off but another took up the chase and proceeded to bury the old timer with reams of information to back up the original claim. Near as I can tell, they called the game on account of rain.
Kant remarked that there is some truth in any common concept and some fallacy or error. For this reason it is well to try to find the truth that might be present, perhaps concealed, in an opponent's arguments and attempt to build on that. In this way some progress might result.
Excellent points to be sure. I’ve come to rely on my instincts when all else fails; for example, when I’m unable to comprehend the intricacies of a highly technical piece. It obviously does’t, and can’t work all the time, but seems to be serving me well the older I get.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.