An awesome new science show

MiGGeLLo

Senior Member
My "simplistic" explanations are for your sake. ;) I suppose they're not simple enough.

You brought up the sand, I only used it to give a very accurate illustration, as is made apparent by your above statements.

My issue with your explanations isn't that they aren't simple enough, rather it is that they have too little regard for reality, and readily indulge in ancient goatherds' fantasies such as the biblical creation story while discounting well supported scientific principles by using already thoroughly debunked lines of attack against them.
 

EverGreen1231

Senior Member
That's funny....

psst. you can do both.

You could, but you shouldn't; at least, you shouldn't give the tv shows more than a passing "that's interesting." "Scientific" tv programs do gross disservice to the enterprise's intelligibility, dissonant as it may be in some cases.
 

EverGreen1231

Senior Member
My issue with your explanations isn't that they aren't simple enough, rather it is that they have too little regard for reality, and readily indulge in ancient goatherds' fantasies such as the biblical creation story while discounting well supported scientific principles by using already thoroughly debunked lines of attack against them.

Oh, but I know what will be said...
"Your head is thoroughly embedded in the sand."
"What's the sand?"
"I dunno. FORWARD!"
"Why are you walking backward?"
There's no answer.
 

ambush80

Senior Member
You could, but you shouldn't; at least, you shouldn't give the tv shows more than a passing "that's interesting." "Scientific" tv programs do gross disservice to the enterprise's intelligibility, dissonant as it may be in some cases.

Ridiculous. A TV program, particularly like the ones that I linked, give way more scientific information than a science article in the New Yorker. Don't read magazines either? How about scientific journals?
 

EverGreen1231

Senior Member
Ridiculous. A TV program, particularly like the ones that I linked, give way more scientific information than a science article in the New Yorker. Don't read magazines either? How about scientific journals?

You even bother to read a science article written by the New Yorker? :bounce:

I don't have much use for TV programs, and if you do, that's fine; but let's not pretend like you can learn anything from those shows that will enable you to seriously discuss scientific principles. They're puff pieces that allow laymen to feel smart during a conversation at the supper table.
 

ambush80

Senior Member
You even bother to read a science article written by the New Yorker? :bounce:

Often.

I don't have much use for TV programs, and if you do, that's fine; but let's not pretend like you can learn anything from those shows that will enable you to seriously discuss scientific principles. They're puff pieces that allow laymen to feel smart during a conversation at the supper table.


I agree that most people don't know much about science. The information in those programs will exceed most layperson's understanding of the subjects. I don't have to pretend that one could learn something from those shows. Why don't you watch one and then critique it honestly instead of bloviating.
 

MiGGeLLo

Senior Member
Oh, but I know what will be said...
"Your head is thoroughly embedded in the sand."
"What's the sand?"
"I dunno. FORWARD!"
"Why are you walking backward?"
There's no answer.

As I said before, if you want to talk about what sand is we should start a thread for it ;).

Come back when you have to offer other than unsubstantiated bull-hockey, deflection, and pseudo 'wisdom'.

Evergreen has the best books, everybody says so, the best. :p
 

EverGreen1231

Senior Member
As I said before, if you want to talk about what sand is we should start a thread for it ;).

Come back when you have to offer other than unsubstantiated bull-hockey, deflection, and pseudo 'wisdom'.

Evergreen has the best books, everybody says so, the best. :p

Evergreen does have the best book. ;)
 

660griz

Senior Member
:cheers: I'll take Woodbury or Gay over Atlanta every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

We have been looking at homes down that way.
I may no longer be able to go straight through Gay.
:)
 

EverGreen1231

Senior Member
We have been looking at homes down that way.
I may no longer be able to go straight through Gay.
:)

There used to be a church in Gay called "Gay Baptist Church." They've since changed the name. I can't figure out why.
 

Israel

BANNED
There used to be a church in Gay called "Gay Baptist Church." They've since changed the name. I can't figure out why.

They probably felt they had to abandon that name because because it has been co-opted by a certain group with whom they fear they could be associated if they persisted in its use. Or "approving". Gay is not just the name of a town, now, some use it to describe their appetites.
Glad to be a help.
 
Top