![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mar. 1st, 2006
It used to be (and in print it still is) that corrections would be hidden away on some other page, in small print, buried in ads so nobody saw them, or if from a columnist, buried as an appendix to a totally irrelevant subject.
Now, with RSS feeds, the correction gets its own entry in the feed and is therefore given equal weight with new content, allowing it to actually have an impact on the reader rather than through obscurity, keeping the regular reader misinformed. this is an improvement.
case in point, the 'post had an editorial that incorrectly named Shani Davis as the first black athlete to medal in an individual sport at the winter olympics. they corrected it to name Debi Thomas as a medalist (bronze) in '88. Davis was the first to *gold*, not the first to medal.
Now, with RSS feeds, the correction gets its own entry in the feed and is therefore given equal weight with new content, allowing it to actually have an impact on the reader rather than through obscurity, keeping the regular reader misinformed. this is an improvement.
case in point, the 'post had an editorial that incorrectly named Shani Davis as the first black athlete to medal in an individual sport at the winter olympics. they corrected it to name Debi Thomas as a medalist (bronze) in '88. Davis was the first to *gold*, not the first to medal.
Yeah, the liars are working on it...
Nev. Proposal Raises Evolution Questions - Yahoo! News:
By the way, the scientific response to all three of those is not true, not true, and not true (with a note from myself that if a creature didn't have a sex drive, it would not have sex and therefore die without progeny and thus only creatures with a sex drive would survive: BASIC evolutionary application).
As for trying the back door of "some scientists argue..." - its all fine if you
Nev. Proposal Raises Evolution Questions - Yahoo! News:
A proposed constitutional amendment would require Nevada teachers to instruct students that there are many questions about evolution [...].
Las Vegas masonry contractor Steve Brown filed his initiative petition with the secretary of state's office, and must collect 83,184 signatures by June 20 to get the plan on the November ballot.
[...]
The plan says several "areas of disagreement" would have to be covered by teachers, including the view by some scientists that "it is mathematically impossible for the first cell to have evolved by itself."
Students also would have to be told some scientists argue "that nowhere in the fossil record is there an indisputable skeleton of a transitional species, or a 'missing link,'" the proposal says.
Also, the proposal says students "must be informed that the origin of sex, or sex drive, is one of biology's mysteries" and that some scientists contend that sexual reproduction "would require an unbelievable series of chance events that would have had to occur in the evolutionary theory."
By the way, the scientific response to all three of those is not true, not true, and not true (with a note from myself that if a creature didn't have a sex drive, it would not have sex and therefore die without progeny and thus only creatures with a sex drive would survive: BASIC evolutionary application).
As for trying the back door of "some scientists argue..." - its all fine if you
- cite them by name specifically
- cite all of the (dozens) of counter arguments and analysis of faults of their arguments, and most importantly
- teach them that every single organizational level above "species" (and even species itself), as well as the word "transitional" are human-constructed terms (mostly from the 18th century and predating Darwin) for cataloging that means nothing to nature itself. Nature doesn't care about Orders and Families and Classes. Populations simply are what they are - WE gave them names to keep track of them all.
...then why is Plan B still lodged in an eternal bureaucratic quagmire rather than being out there on the market where women who need it can get it?
Update: Chris Mooney wonders why, as important as her whistle-blowing was on the situation, the author didn't get more serious into trying to determine the political origins of this political issue. She raised a lot of questions as rhetorical, without presuming to answer any of them. Should she have? Mooney thinks so, but I'm not so sure. Maybe this is one of those cases where if one presents the problem and its cause at the same time, one overloads the audience with poltical speculation that's automatically met by cynicism (disguised as skepticism, but its not really).
Maybe its best to have independent voices look at the facts she's presented and assemble theories to the causes a little more scientifically, to try to drum up evidence that religion is driving this attack on women's rights rather than flatly saying it just because it fits a (well known) trend.
If you simply blame "the religious right", as Mooney did, you come off as a pundit and partisan, making more enemies than allies. We (those who favor good education and science) need to separate the religious right ("social conservatives") from their republican mainstream ("academic conservatives") rather than give them more reasons to be allies by increasing their common enemies.
Update: Chris Mooney wonders why, as important as her whistle-blowing was on the situation, the author didn't get more serious into trying to determine the political origins of this political issue. She raised a lot of questions as rhetorical, without presuming to answer any of them. Should she have? Mooney thinks so, but I'm not so sure. Maybe this is one of those cases where if one presents the problem and its cause at the same time, one overloads the audience with poltical speculation that's automatically met by cynicism (disguised as skepticism, but its not really).
Maybe its best to have independent voices look at the facts she's presented and assemble theories to the causes a little more scientifically, to try to drum up evidence that religion is driving this attack on women's rights rather than flatly saying it just because it fits a (well known) trend.
If you simply blame "the religious right", as Mooney did, you come off as a pundit and partisan, making more enemies than allies. We (those who favor good education and science) need to separate the religious right ("social conservatives") from their republican mainstream ("academic conservatives") rather than give them more reasons to be allies by increasing their common enemies.
oh, and to provide an exception to Mooney,
Mar. 1st, 2006 04:49 pmScientific ignorance knows no bounds, practices no particular religion, and (most importantly) doesn't tow any particular party line: the Nevada bricklayer is a Democrat.