Scientific presentations unnecessarily ‘dumbed down'

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

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

And being one doesn't justify yours.

Any particular reason you feel the need to come to TC's defense Frank? A tad hypocritical considering of your claims in regards to me and Sam don't you think. And for the record, I'm not defending Sam but I really don't think he's stupid.

That's too bad Stephanie. I'm sure you would have done a wonderful job.

Aaron wrote:Any particular reason you feel the need to come to TC's defense Frank? A tad hypocritical considering of your claims in regards to me and Sam don't you think. And for the record, I'm not defending Sam but I really don't think he's stupid.

And I don't think TRC is stupid.

I note that you don't deny that Sam can be an ass, though.

I think the ability to be an ass is one aspect of our makeup that we all have in common, myself included.

It bothers me that you guys don't get along. I don't think any of you are stupid and I don't think that any of you are asses although sometimes you behave like asses especially toward each other.

I agree with Aaron, I'm not above being an ass, as I'm sure you'll all attest.

Play nice.

Play nice.

Sam started it- again. He's been pickin' a "stupidity" fight with TRC for weeks here. If Sam can throw rocks at TRC, I can at least throw gravels at Sam.

I'm telling my mommy.

LOL

I didn't mean you had to play nice. It was more a wish.

I wish you'd all play nice. I especially wish Sam would play nice. I'm not about to force anyone, but you know that.

I don't understand why it is I can like you all as much as I do but you don't like each other. In any event, I find you all very entertaining most of the time.

ziggy wrote:

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

And being one doesn't justify yours.

But your "track record" of accomplishments sure justifies yours.




.

ziggy wrote:

Play nice.

Sam started it- again. He's been pickin' a "stupidity" fight with TRC for weeks here. If Sam can throw rocks at TRC, I can at least throw gravels at Sam.

AGAIN, ...... you post a bold faced lie, ...... Zigster, ...... which is not uncommon for you to do.

Sam did not "start it - again", ...... TerryRC did with his 1st Post to this thread, to wit:

TerryRC wrote:
Let's start with this one. Are you suggesting that the author is merely "CYA"ing by using the word "may" and therefore hedging bets?

That is being honest. Most scientists almost always allow for error in their conclusions. The people that quote them may not, however.

For instance, I "know" that Sam is a curmudgeon. I could, however, be wrong.

To be honest, both to myself and the world, I should say something like, "I think it highly likely that Sam is a curmudgeon."

I would then present my evidence and leave people to draw their own conclusions.

People that speak in absolutes are frequently found to be in error.

Ziggy, it is you spoiled "cry babies" that don't like it when you get "slapped back" for slapping at someone.

Zig, both you and TRC expect Stephanie to come to your defence and protect you since your Mother is no longer around to do it.




.
.

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.

Right. Dobie Gillis, Howdy Doody, Andy Griffith, My Three Sons.

I could go on but I have made my point, I think. By 1955, there was a TV in the majority of houses and ample programming for kids.

I called you an ass because any statements that starts with "I bet you think..." deserves it.

Zig, both you and TRC expect Stephanie to come to your defence and protect you since your Mother is no longer around to do it.

Steph and I disagree often and she hardly ever comes to my "defence", Sammy. My mom is still around and has been making me fight my own fights since I was five.

Just more of your ad hom bullshit.

I called you a curmedgeon in an EXAMPLE. Apparently I was spot on because you are acting like one, "...you kids nowadays don't know how to think or be anything but cry babies...".

TerryRC,

Let me go back to my assertion. If ID is not science, then neither is anti-ID science.

TerryRC wrote: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.

Right. Dobie Gillis, Howdy Doody, Andy Griffith, My Three Sons.

I could go on but I have made my point, I think. By 1955, there was a TV in the majority of houses and ample programming for kids.

I called you an ass because any statements that starts with "I bet you think..." deserves it.

You can't go on because you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Of the 4 above you mentioned only Howdy Doody was for children and like other children's programs it was broadcast only on Saturday mornings. The others were "family programs" that were broadcast from 7 pm to 10 pm weekdays.

Even "adolescent or teenage specific" programming like The Mickey Mouse Club and American Bandstand were quite limited in numbers.

The only reason they started broadcasting the "News and weather" at the 6 pm hour was because they needed a "filler" because that was when families were eating their supper and advertisers would not sponsor and/or pay for commercials during that hour.

If you remember what I've been tellin you TRC .......... then you can appear smart the next time you engage in a conversation on the subject.


.

Of the 4 above you mentioned only Howdy Doody was for children and like other children's programs it was broadcast only on Saturday mornings.

No, not quite.

Howdy Doody was the name of a 27-inch, big-eared, freckle-faced, wooden puppet. Howdy appeared in a starring capacity on an immensely popular children's television show of the same name that ran on NBC from 1947 to 1960.

The Howdy Doody Show was the creation of Robert E. Smith (1917-1998), a former radio personality, who appeared along with his wooden counterpart at first on a weekly basis and later five days a week from Monday through Friday, starting at 5:30 in the afternoon.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g1epc/is_tov/ai_2419100607

I recall that one of those afternoon series found Howdy Doody and friends in the middle of a terrible heat wave. So Howdy was selected to make a trip up to the sun to turn the crank that would lower the sun's intensity. But poor ole' Howdy, blinded by intense sunlight and nearly on fire from the sun's sweltering heat, turned that control crank too hard and just broke it off- just broke off the sun's temperature control crank. It was and remains an un-mitigatable disaster.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we have global warming bearing down on us today- because that clumsy Howdy Doody guy carelessly turned that control crank too hard and broke it off- rendering the sun forever out of control.

Now Sam can piss and moan about my "track record of accomplishments". But of all the posters here and on the old Gazette forums, only Ziggy has the treasure trove of storehoused knowledge to explain the real cause of global warming, as I have done just above.

If Sam's momma let him watch the Howdy Doody show only on Saturday mornings, that's too bad. But I was allowed the advantages of the Howdy Doody advanced culture experience every weekday afternoon. And it shows.

Bob Smith convinced NBC Television that if kids liked listening to Howdy on the radio, they'd clamor over being able to see and hear him on screen; and on Saturday, December 27th, 1947, (<9% households had TVs) a new show - Puppet Playhouse - debuted at 5 p.m., the first show of the day ('round-the-clock television not having debuted yet). Kids grew to love Howdy Doody, his pal Buffalo Bob, and their hometown of Doodyville, which included all sorts of wacky characters such as Clarabelle the Clown (who never spoke but communicated through horn honks, one horn for yes, the other for no), Oil Well Willie, and Chief Thunderthud (who originated the phrase "Kowa-bunga!"). Before long, demand prompted the show to appear five days a week at thirty minutes per show at 5:30 in the afternoon - allowing kids plenty of time to get their homework done and then get in a half-hour of Doody time before sitting down to supper at 6:00.

Beginning in 1955, (64% households had TVs) Howdy started having serious competition: The Micky Mouse Club began airing episodes, featuring not only amusing characters, but giving kids a cast much like themselves (except perhaps more attractive and interesting) with whom they could identify. The drop in ratings forced the citizens of Doodyville to revert to their original Saturday once-a-week schedule, ………………..

http://www.tv.pop-cult.com/howdy-doody-show.html

And that 64% households that had TVs in 1955 were 96% urban households.

.

All I have to say is thanks to the two of you I'm gonna have the My Three Sons theme song stuck in my head for days.

TYVM.

Of the 4 above you mentioned only Howdy Doody was for children and like other children's programs it was broadcast only on Saturday mornings. The others were "family programs" that were broadcast from 7 pm to 10 pm weekdays.

And were reruns in the daytime throughout the 60's.

Like I said, TV has been used as a babysitter by many for far more than the 20 years that you think is correlated with the rise in autism diagnoses.