pied piper

in reference to a previous posting on science :
http://realitystructure.blogspot.com/2005/12/key-stage-gcse-why-not-post-doctoral.html

there are interesting leads in examining the conclusions of scientific research papers [ sometimes oversimplified in the abstract] in relation to the data gleaned from, and the methodology of the research study.

[arguments about funding effects, promotion via sensationalised abstract, "flag" planting [nation/institution] in new territory are not considered in this piece of writing but are of importance in considering the context in which science/academic study operates both in reference to itself and in refernce to the relation between it and non-expert media interface, for example.]

conversation and discussion of this aspect of research[conclusions] is one where a programme maker[ also obviously printed or textual medias] could splice a segment into the programme to further investigate and illuminate the area of study.

in this posited portion: non-specific experts, critics , experts from different relevent fields eg history of partic acad subject, philosophers, philosophers of science, tv "celebrity scientists" could play a greater role along with specific experts with different take/competing school of thought as well as experts from same field who generally support the claims. - all with associated links?

again, in line with the "tvml" links conception used in the previous article related to science education [see link at top of page], there are opportunities for extended discussion to be acessible through linkages in video/visual representation recording.

obviously, the incorporation of host language audio-to-text [ ok and braile]transcripting software would also be of value - perhaps in the programme delivery system.... whether through a development of tv, or internet pc, even digital radio, etc[any connected surface.... even an internet cushion, though its not important here], platform.

hopefully focussing on conclusions [ as well as methodological inappropriateness for conclusion weight]
is a way to perhaps explore the overinterpretation of data and reduce the emergent tendency for the narrative used to explain a specific result or conclusion from short circuiting discussion, thus providing an alternative to narrative identification in mainstream media spaces - reducing incestuous overwriting between narrative and science/academia, with misplaced acceptance of confirmation.

- realitystructure