BlogU

  • Come Together, Right Now

    By Oronte June 19, 2009 1:32 am

    I know why I know so little, but why is it so difficult for you scientists to know things definitively? You’re the ones that got soluble dentifrice into those tubes that never go flat.

    All a guy really wants to know from you, for instance, is what the deal was 12,000 years ago, so he can mention quickly, in a nonfiction book about Southern Illinois, that 35 genera of big mammals hanging around back then suddenly went extinct, including all the local mammoths, camels, giant ground sloths, and horses. If you could get together on your story, he could go back to finishing his reading on bootleggers being hung for killing each other. ("It is a beautiful world," one said as they slipped the hood over his head.)

    Now, for years you blamed the Clovis people and their hot new technology for the extinctions. You said they were the first to walk across the Bering land-bridge, and that they hunted everything out after inventing deep fryers.

    Then, all of a sudden, you announced you’d found evidence of pre-Clovis people all down the Americas, which kind of blew wide open your whole slander against the Clovis folk. Besides, the Clovis seem to have disappeared right along with the Giant Short-Faced Bears.

    Now you say the Younger Dryas did it.

    I mean, this geologic-prehistoric stuff isn’t the guy’s main focus—it’s not even a footnote, really, to what he’s writing—but you can see how he’d get a little sidetracked when you said it’s awfully funky, scientifically speaking, that even though the glaciers sitting on North America were melting back, this little ice age called the Younger Dryas came on again suddenly for another 1,200 years, probably killing off the food and destroying habitat, but you didn’t know why. I mean, that’s so weird.

    You said the YD was brought on when Lake Agassiz, a body of glacial meltwater bigger in area than the state of California, broke an ice dam and drained into the North Atlantic, shutting down the Gulf Stream and changing the earth’s climate.

    No, wait a minute: A comet impacted the earth, scorched the surface and raised dust and ash. “The entire continent was on fire,” you said. “And we’ve got the nanodiamonds to prove it.”

    Psych!

Advertisement

Comments on Come Together, Right Now

  • hiya
  • Posted by vicky , hi at holleo on June 19, 2009 at 5:45am EDT
  • just want to say i like your site

  • A Democracy of Ghosts
  • Posted by Beth in Southern Illinois on June 19, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • Can't wait for 5:00 to come today; arrived home late last night from our college's board meeting to find your book waiting for me...The husband will have to keep the baby happy this evening. I am starting your book. Looking forward to the next one! (BTW, I boutght two copies -- one for my dad, who remembers much about the violence in So. IL of his childhood and young adulthood.)

  • Burglar in My Apartment
  • Posted by DoveArrow on June 19, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • Let's say someone breaks into my department. With a little bit of deduction, I can figure out a lot of things. For example, the window in my living room is broken, and the curtains are a little out of joint, so it's pretty reasonable to conclude that the person came through my living room window. I then walk around and notice that the television's gone, leading me to conclude that the person who broke into my house probably took it.

    However, as much as I can deduce simply by looking around my house, I have no visual clues to tell me who the person was, what they look like, or what they ultimately did with my television. Sure, I can call the police, and they can come in and dust for fingerprints, but what if the person wore gloves? What if they have no criminal record? How much investigation will I have to do at that point to figure out who broke into my house, and how many theories will I come up with before I finally stumble onto the correct one?

    The way I understand it, science is kind've like that. Scientists can see that all this stuff happened, but they don't know why. So they do a lot of investigation, hatch some theories, investigate those theories, and utlimately discover that their theories are wrong, forcing them to start all over again. Hopefully, if they do this enough times, they stumble onto the truth. However, it's just as likely that they may never find it, and will always be searching for it.

    Science is not about the discovery of truth, but rather the search for it. If, along the way, science demonstrates that some things are not true, then that should be seen as a sign of its achievements, not its failures. People often get discouraged by science because they see it as providing answers. The truth is, science doesn't provide answers. It only asks more questions. :-)

  • The answer is...
  • Posted by Dallas on June 20, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • ... science is hard.

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38575

  • Hey Dallas
  • Posted by Oronte on June 20, 2009 at 9:45pm EDT
  • Try being a parent.