Scientific presentations unnecessarily ‘dumbed down'

TerryRC wrote:I think global warming and the blaming of autism on genetics are similar. They are both ways that underproductive or lazy scientists are able to make pronouncements that are as of yet untestable and enjoy public support.

Sounds just like "intelligent design".

I don't think you treat intelligent design fairly. Some say the inference to the best explanation is there was a designer, and some say that it isn't. If you want to say that it's out of the realm of science, then fine, but do you have equal disdain then for the Daniel Dennett's and Richard Dawkins of the world?

TV has been around since then but would you deny that in the past 20 years or so it has become ever more the omnipresent figure in the house? I think the idea is that it is the amount rather than the existence of television that makes the issue.

Busy moms have been sitting their kids in front of the tube since its invention.

I agree there is more use of computer monitors and game consoles, but that is in older kids, not the <5yr. group that Sam's article focuses on.

I don't think you treat intelligent design fairly. Some say the inference to the best explanation is there was a designer, and some say that it isn't. If you want to say that it's out of the realm of science, then fine, but do you have equal disdain then for the Daniel Dennett's and Richard Dawkins of the world?

I have likely read more about ID than you have. Then again, I may be wrong.

Right or wrong, ID can't offer any insight into why we are the way we are (and everything else, for that matter) except for "we were made that way".

End of argument. What part of that is scientific and testable?

I think I treat ID very fairly, thanks.

By dismissing it out of hand?

I go back to my question about Dawkins and Dennett.

If you are saying that ID is not testable or falsifiable, and therefore not within the realm of science, then this is well and good, provided that you also reject materialism in the same way (it's just as impossible to falsify or test the lack of intelligence as it is to falsify or test its presence).

If you are saying that ID is not testable or falsifiable, and therefore not within the realm of science, then this is well and good, provided that you also reject materialism in the same way (it's just as impossible to falsify or test the lack of intelligence as it is to falsify or test its presence).

You are not making sense, Sheik.

If I have read the research and found it to not be science, how have I dismissed it "out of hand".

If I can't test it, I just don't care about it as science. ID may be fine as a philosophy or a religion.

It's just as impossible to falsify or test the lack of intelligence as it is to falsify or test its presence.

Intelligence can be measured in a number of ways. Evolution can be tested in a number of ways (and has been and has never been disproven...).

You are still comparing apples and rocks, Sheik.

TerryRC wrote:
TV has been around since then but would you deny that in the past 20 years or so it has become ever more the omnipresent figure in the house? I think the idea is that it is the amount rather than the existence of television that makes the issue.

Busy moms have been sitting their kids in front of the tube since its invention.

HORSEPUCKY

Apparently you think the Cartoon Network was the first ever TV channel to be broadcast on the public airways.



.

Sam,

I think mothers have been allowing very young children to watch tv for a very long time.

I'll never forget my mother telling me when Richard was TWO years old I should be turning the TV on for him so he would watch Sesame Street & Mr. Rogers while I did housework etc. She asked me, "Why doesn't he watch TV like all the other two year olds?"

PBS has been providing television geared towards very young children since I was very young and I'm 44. How long was Capt. Kangaroo on?

Sesame Street first aired in a test market in July 1969.

The first broadcast of Mister Rogers' Neighborhood was on the National Educational Television network on February 19, 1968.

And don't forget Steph, both those programs were "interactive" with the children that were watching them. And that is why the children loved them and they were educational.

.

Apparently you think the Cartoon Network was the first ever TV channel to be broadcast on the public airways.

Why would you say that? What statement did I make to make you even think that?

Moms didn't set their kids down in front of Sesame St. or the Electric Company or reruns of Leave it to Beaver?

You are just being an ass, Sam.

Or Romper Room or Capt Kangaroo who was Clarabell the clown before that. There were the Little Rascals and Mickey Mouse Club and Mighty Mouse and Popeye. The Flintstones and Scooby Doo and a show about an orphaned white lion cub named Kimba were our favorites when I was little. Kids have been watching TV for a very long time.

Sam, I agree kids are watching more tv than when I was a child and now they've got all those damn video games. I'm sure it's having an impact, but very young children are being diagnosed with autism. Maybe it has more to do with kids being in daycare for 40+ hours a week from age 6 weeks. How much stimulation can those daycare workers be providing infants and toddlers? I'm sure that has a huge impact on kids.

Why are the mothers getting all the blame when most of them return to the workforce pdq these days? My friend's daughter returned to work when her son was only 4 weeks old! My sister-in-law will return to work when my niece is 13 weeks old.......better, but still far too soon to be plunked in daycare.

TerryRC wrote:Busy moms have been sitting their kids in front of the tube since its invention.

(Sam) Apparently you think the Cartoon Network was the first ever TV channel to be broadcast on the public airways.

Why would you say that? What statement did I make to make you even think that?

What the hell is your problem TRC, .... I boldfaced your silly statement and included it with my above comment.

Now what are you going to reply with, .... some CYA that you thought I was talking about Dish Network or Capitol Cable or some other piece of tripe.

Total U.S. Households With TV
1950 9.0 %
1955 64.5 %
1960 87.1 %
1970 95.3 %
http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/mediatrendstrack/tvbasics/02_TVHouseholds.asp

In the 50's and 60's the majority of households could only get 3 channels and many of them could on get 1 channel. And 98% of the programming was geared to adults.

TerryRC wrote:Moms didn't set their kids down in front of Sesame St. or the Electric Company or reruns of Leave it to Beaver?

You are just being an ass, Sam.

Terry, calling me an ass does not justify your stupidity.

.

Stephanie wrote:
Sam, I agree kids are watching more tv than when I was a child and now they've got all those damn video games. I'm sure it's having an impact, but very young children are being diagnosed with autism. Maybe it has more to do with kids being in daycare for 40+ hours a week from age 6 weeks. How much stimulation can those daycare workers be providing infants and toddlers? I'm sure that has a huge impact on kids.

Steph, I guarantee you that the majority of those kids that spend 40+ hours a week from age 6 weeks in Daycare are being nurtured far better than if they were at home stuck in front of a TV.

.

TerryRC wrote:If you are saying that ID is not testable or falsifiable, and therefore not within the realm of science, then this is well and good, provided that you also reject materialism in the same way (it's just as impossible to falsify or test the lack of intelligence as it is to falsify or test its presence).

You are not making sense, Sheik.

If I have read the research and found it to not be science, how have I dismissed it "out of hand".

If I can't test it, I just don't care about it as science. ID may be fine as a philosophy or a religion.

It's just as impossible to falsify or test the lack of intelligence as it is to falsify or test its presence.

Intelligence can be measured in a number of ways. Evolution can be tested in a number of ways (and has been and has never been disproven...).

You are still comparing apples and rocks, Sheik.

I didn't say "evolution" I said "lack of intelligence."

Neither intelligence nor it's absence is testable or falsifiable in the lab. If ID is not science, then neither is anti-ID.

Stephanie wrote:
Why are the mothers getting all the blame when most of them return to the workforce pdq these days? My friend's daughter returned to work when her son was only 4 weeks old! My sister-in-law will return to work when my niece is 13 weeks old.......better, but still far too soon to be plunked in daycare.

In the 1950's the government took 8% of our paycheck for taxes. Now that numbers for most Americans is at the very least, 28% and for most of today's middle class hovers around 35%. And that number doesn't include taxes we pay at the pump or the check out line so it's probably closer to 40% of everything we make goes to Uncle Sam.

Do you think mothers would have to return to work as soon if a family had that extra ~30% pay in their pocket instead of the governments? If you want to identify the root problem, perhaps that is a good place to start. Granted, if most families would give up the wants and only live on the needs, they could afford to get by on a one person income but that ~30% would still help out tremendously.

And perhaps you're S-I-L should look to moving closer to you Stephanie. We're I in her husbands position and my wife had to return to work, I would.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:
Why are the mothers getting all the blame when most of them return to the workforce pdq these days? My friend's daughter returned to work when her son was only 4 weeks old! My sister-in-law will return to work when my niece is 13 weeks old.......better, but still far too soon to be plunked in daycare.

In the 1950's the government took 8% of our paycheck for taxes. Now that numbers for most Americans is at the very least, 28% and for most of today's middle class hovers around 35%. And that number doesn't include taxes we pay at the pump or the check out line so it's probably closer to 40% of everything we make goes to Uncle Sam.

Do you think mothers would have to return to work as soon if a family had that extra ~30% pay in their pocket instead of the governments? If you want to identify the root problem, perhaps that is a good place to start. Granted, if most families would give up the wants and only live on the needs, they could afford to get by on a one person income but that ~30% would still help out tremendously.

And perhaps you're S-I-L should look to moving closer to you Stephanie. We're I in her husbands position and my wife had to return to work, I would.

It ain't going to happen. They won't leave their parents. My brother won't leave RI. This could have, and would have, been avoided if he did not give into her demands. My brother owned a 2 bedroom house when he married her with about 8 years of equity. It wasn't good enough for her, she insisted they needed a bigger, better home. She spent her life savings on the wedding of her dreams and then she wants a baby NOW because she was 36.5 y/o and the biological clock was a-ticking. My brother shouldn't have given in to all her demands and this could have been avoided. Fortunately my brother only works Thurs-Sun and she works Mon-Fri they're only looking at 2 days a week which her mother is going to attempt. Her mom seems very devoted and my brother likes her parents etc but they are in their late 60's. Taking care of a toddler is an enormous challenge for a 68 y/o woman who hasn't had to care for a toddler in over 30 years.

I agree taxes have played a role, but so hasn't America's insistance on having the latest everything. Every family has two cars.....that sure wasn't the case when we were growing up. These are tough times with the price of gas being what it is and the rising cost of food etc. I may go to work parttime myself if anybody will have me after all these years of domestic bliss! lol