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

resolving linkage

consider the following theory identifiers as discussed in mainstream media


1. evolution :

2. lamarckianism or lamarckism

3. intelligent design


what happens when these identifiers are linked with[compared /seen through]:


1. religious dogma

2. capitalism

3. competition theory

4. socialism

5. systems or operating system analysis

6. liability through heredety

7. emergent complexity

8. "esoteric" ideas/systems

[there are more - as many as one wants really]

some example questions

what affect do the different contexts [individually] [eg 1-8 above]
have on a persons understanding of the relevence, meaning and framing of such conceptual identifiers

what affect does the persons previous programming layer - [eg 1-8] have on their understanding and envisionment, and subscribership to identifiers [1-3]

how might combinations of ideas complex into world views - in terms of knowledge structure, layering and cross-linking of concepts, promotion, spin, saturation. etc

of interest particularly here is the up-scaling of theory or the deft swapping and interchangability of theory and fact, map and territory, model and actual functioning. [up and down scaling of language wrt meaning is not a new thing - neither newly observed or documented thing]
evolution as a process has been demonstrated to a degree in laboratory circumstances, and in recent high gradient "pressure" natural environments. developments and tweakings of the core-linked set of elements of the theory have elaborated on the original formulation and gained a degree of "territory" and certainty, perhaps explaining the up- scaling.
problems arise when one attributes monolithically and somewhat exclusively research conclusion to a particular theory, in this case using as an example : evolution, at the expense of competing theories - as with all incorrectly pegged corroboration - the nucleate issue is diminished in value or reputation by inappropriately or loosely bound chelate information.
one could argue that environment can modify genetic expression in the subsequent generation by looking at for example mutagenic substance experience as a finding that could support aspects of evolution as well as lamarkianism- certainly a neo-lamarkianism- and have the argument proper so to speak. what then the meaning of visiting "the sins of the fathers on the sons" or "unto the thirteenth generation" - again to understand the conceptual reality and more importantly to understand the non-quantitive ,qualitive, relational, transforming potential and interactivity - behaviur - of knowledge , i would argue it foolish to dismiss awkward themes and reference points - if well argued.
for example : evolution studies, make much use of mathematical underpinnings yet intelligent design [ by no means a new theory - more a new promotion] can be resolved as agnostic theist or athiest , in one particular way, dependent on ones conceptualisation and understanding of mathematics.

- realitystructure