samboct
Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007 Status: offline
|
Hi January Your definition of science is of course, correct. However, the Jan. 1, 2010 issue of Science has an interesting article by Peter Kareiva on p. 34 where he discusses the issues of communicating science to the public. All too often scientists are ignored. Check out the Politics and Religion forum if you think thats an exaggeration. Thus, it's incumbent upon scientists to communicate with non-scientists differently. One of the historical problems in scientists communication is the default statement often is "This topic needs more study." I'm a firm believer that scientists need to not only discuss issues such as climate change with the public, they need to be prepared to develop some solutions as well. Alternatively, the politicians and corporate interests that have gotten us into this mess will continue to dig us in deeper. So if I'm going to call attention to a problem, I'm also going to throw out some ideas for a solution if I can. Concerning the rest of your post- the idea that her behavior was attributable to her identification as a female supremacist was indeed the proposed hypothesis. As this thread should have shown, that hypothesis does not fit the facts well and has been rejected. Seeking owner- again, we clearly have a difference of opinion in terms of the issue of date dissection. As noted earlier, if someone decided to dissect a date with me in a similar fashion, but maintained my anonymity- I do not have the same issues as you as noted previously in this thread. Hence, my actions and viewpoint are not hypocritical, but they are different from yours and a number of the women who have posted. However, I appreciate the effort of your suggestions, and they do have merit. Cheers, Sam
< Message edited by samboct -- 8/17/2010 3:34:56 PM >
|