Yes–she’s in the difficult position of being a voice crying in the wilderness: does she make the point that will exile her for years, or does she go with the flow and eventually become the unknown and forgotten person who might have pointed out a new discovery?
The real problem is that, in science, eventually the truth will surface. It may take a long, looooong time, but it will come.
But it is how science works. And it’s always been like that. Galileo was persecuted for his theory that the world wasn’t the center of the universe. People don’t like changes that mess with their worldview. ESPECIALLY if it might possible contradict a religious “fact” (or something that might be perceived as a fact).
Finding the lost city of Atlantis or at least proving its (former) existence would be pretty cool and at least somewhat accepted by the world at large. Telling everyone it was destroyed by a supposedly-mythical creature will only damage your credibility, no matter how much proof you have.
As Darren would say, you need to make them come to your conclusion on their own, convince them it was their idea. Don’t tell them Atlantis was real, present the evidence but act confused by it. Present enough of it so that anyone educated in ancient history will think they can figure it out because they know so much more than you. Maybe even point out something that “proves” it can’t be from Atlantis, but put a major flaw in the argument that they will notice. That’s what I’d do.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t really work that way. Evidence, by definition, is something that supports a certain theory. Thus, you can’t present evidence to back up a theory, without presenting the theory itself. And even if you didn’t, the scientists you would be presenting it to, would most likely be bright enough to infer your theory from the evidence presented. Trying to then contradict this theory with obviously flawed arguments would most likely get you laughed out of the room.
That last panel sounds like something a Politician would say.
It does indeed.
At least she didn’t say anything about alternative facts…
Yes–she’s in the difficult position of being a voice crying in the wilderness: does she make the point that will exile her for years, or does she go with the flow and eventually become the unknown and forgotten person who might have pointed out a new discovery?
The real problem is that, in science, eventually the truth will surface. It may take a long, looooong time, but it will come.
This is not how science is supposed to work. It may be part of the politics of science, but it isn’t how science works.
But it is how science works. And it’s always been like that. Galileo was persecuted for his theory that the world wasn’t the center of the universe. People don’t like changes that mess with their worldview. ESPECIALLY if it might possible contradict a religious “fact” (or something that might be perceived as a fact).
Finding the lost city of Atlantis or at least proving its (former) existence would be pretty cool and at least somewhat accepted by the world at large. Telling everyone it was destroyed by a supposedly-mythical creature will only damage your credibility, no matter how much proof you have.
*possibly
Oh, to have an edit button…
A more current example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener
He was vilified by the geological science community for his theory of plate techtonics.
the world wasnt ready for that in 2008
its still not ready in 2011
we need a nice microwave style ‘bing’ to sound when we are ready ^^
As Darren would say, you need to make them come to your conclusion on their own, convince them it was their idea. Don’t tell them Atlantis was real, present the evidence but act confused by it. Present enough of it so that anyone educated in ancient history will think they can figure it out because they know so much more than you. Maybe even point out something that “proves” it can’t be from Atlantis, but put a major flaw in the argument that they will notice. That’s what I’d do.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t really work that way. Evidence, by definition, is something that supports a certain theory. Thus, you can’t present evidence to back up a theory, without presenting the theory itself. And even if you didn’t, the scientists you would be presenting it to, would most likely be bright enough to infer your theory from the evidence presented. Trying to then contradict this theory with obviously flawed arguments would most likely get you laughed out of the room.
OK, rereading in 2016, and I can’t stop seeing panel two as Hillary Clinton.
That is even worse now that the election has happened.
And thus a politician was born!!!😋