Conquer Club

Surprised there has not been a thread on this yet (or did I just miss it).

Anyway:
http://dsc.discovery.com/show-news/merm ... found.html

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... y/1?csp=34

http://animal.discovery.com/videos/mermaids

Best explanation I've heard is some nearsighted sailors who had been at sea away from their women too long seeing a manatee or Steller's Sea Cow doing something like spy-hopping and mistaking the pectoral fins for large breasts.

daddy1gringo wrote:Best explanation I've heard is some nearsighted sailors who had been at sea away from their women too long seeing a manatee or Steller's Sea Cow doing something like spy-hopping and mistaking the pectoral fins for large breasts.

Uh, no... this is a Discovery channel show, with people alleging a government conspiracy

What really made me suspicious was the extreme detail they seem to lay out for evolutionary behavior. Nothing in that regard shown could in any way be documented, except the cave painting (if its valid??). So, if they were truly attempting to put forward an honest story, then why do that? Its not how real scientists work.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:Best explanation I've heard is some nearsighted sailors who had been at sea away from their women too long seeing a manatee or Steller's Sea Cow doing something like spy-hopping and mistaking the pectoral fins for large breasts.

Uh, no... this is a Discovery channel show, with people alleging a government conspiracy

What really made me suspicious was the extreme detail they seem to lay out for evolutionary behavior. Nothing in that regard shown could in any way be documented, except the cave painting (if its valid??). So, if they were truly attempting to put forward an honest story, then why do that? Its not how real scientists work.

Right, I didn't watch the program, but I saw the clips you posted and understand what you are saying. I was just talking about an explanation for the stories of mermaids.

It's not on On Demand... I missed it and wanna see it.

This F-ing country needs Sagan now more than ever.

We need to saw the country apart at the mason-dixon line and kick the south out to sea.

its just like that stupid ancient astronaunts on history channel, i cant believe ppl actually take these things seriously.

Juan_Bottom wrote:
We need to saw the country apart at the mason-dixon line and kick the south out to sea.

You are under the impression that these scientists were southern? I don't believe they were...

daddy1gringo wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:Best explanation I've heard is some nearsighted sailors who had been at sea away from their women too long seeing a manatee or Steller's Sea Cow doing something like spy-hopping and mistaking the pectoral fins for large breasts.

Uh, no... this is a Discovery channel show, with people alleging a government conspiracy

What really made me suspicious was the extreme detail they seem to lay out for evolutionary behavior. Nothing in that regard shown could in any way be documented, except the cave painting (if its valid??). So, if they were truly attempting to put forward an honest story, then why do that? Its not how real scientists work.

Right, I didn't watch the program, but I saw the clips you posted and understand what you are saying. I was just talking about an explanation for the stories of mermaids.

Yeah, the above does seem the most likely... or even just that these were pure imaginings. Its easy to "see" stuff when at sea, in waves. Flotsam and jetsom can look like a lot of things.

They say that rhinos likely contributed to/began the story of unicorns as well...

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:
We need to saw the country apart at the mason-dixon line and kick the south out to sea.

You are under the impression that these scientists were southern? I don't believe they were...

Water's too cold up here for mermaid story's or crazy's who believe them. Nobody wants to pursue a half-whale-half bluborous women.

well with this warm spell, greenland is as hot as texas (70-85 degrees) and therefore the mermaids are too hot under the water, and have to surface a lot more. that leads to these increased sightings.

They recently re-aired this, and I was able to catch it on my DVR.

It was entertaining.

Obviously it was not an honest scientific analysis... it was entertaining. That's all.

If they wanted to have an honest scientific analysis they would have needed to;
1) Get opposing opinions... all opinions on the show agreed with the idea that these things were mermaids.
2) Get specialists to analyse the photographic / video evidence.
3) Show (on screen) when what they were showing was actual footage versus a recreation versus some hypothetical idea.
4) Other things I can't think of....

They did none of this... so it falls into the category of fiction.

Good points, jimbo, but even if it is fiction, does that really matter for some people?

Look at the Upton Sinclair social justice types, expounding upon their beliefs because The Jungle! was perceived as some hard-hitting evidence. Or look those who cite Lord of the Flies as evidence that free markets won't work.


What can we say about such people?
(let's keep it diplomatic)

jimboston wrote:They recently re-aired this, and I was able to catch it on my DVR.

It was entertaining.

Obviously it was not an honest scientific analysis... it was entertaining. That's all.

If they wanted to have an honest scientific analysis they would have needed to;
1) Get opposing opinions... all opinions on the show agreed with the idea that these things were mermaids.
2) Get specialists to analyse the photographic / video evidence.
3) Show (on screen) when what they were showing was actual footage versus a recreation versus some hypothetical idea.
4) Other things I can't think of....

They did none of this... so it falls into the category of fiction.

A bit more hard evidence would have helped, but that tends to blow the whole "power of a conspiracy" bit. If its honest science, it doesn't get traction.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good points, jimbo, but even if it is fiction, does that really matter for some people?

Look at the Upton Sinclair social justice types, expounding upon their beliefs because The Jungle! was perceived as some hard-hitting evidence. Or look those who cite Lord of the Flies as evidence that free markets won't work.


What can we say about such people?
(let's keep it diplomatic)

That you like to troll.... and go off topic.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:Best explanation I've heard is some nearsighted sailors who had been at sea away from their women too long seeing a manatee or Steller's Sea Cow doing something like spy-hopping and mistaking the pectoral fins for large breasts.

Uh, no... this is a Discovery channel show, with people alleging a government conspiracy

What really made me suspicious was the extreme detail they seem to lay out for evolutionary behavior. Nothing in that regard shown could in any way be documented, except the cave painting (if its valid??). So, if they were truly attempting to put forward an honest story, then why do that? Its not how real scientists work.

It's the Discovery Channel, that should have made you suspicious to start with.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good points, jimbo, but even if it is fiction, does that really matter for some people?

Look at the Upton Sinclair social justice types, expounding upon their beliefs because The Jungle! was perceived as some hard-hitting evidence. Or look those who cite Lord of the Flies as evidence that free markets won't work.


What can we say about such people?
(let's keep it diplomatic)

That you like to troll.... and go off topic.

Focus, player. We're talking about the influence of documentaries and silly fiction posing as non-fiction which serves to reinforce people's cognitive bias.

This is completely relevant to the Mermaids. I'm finding a similarity here. Somehow, that's trolling, but then again, anything which you don't like can be considered trolling. You should go find one of those "what is trolling?" threads, and get back to us on that.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Good points, jimbo, but even if it is fiction, does that really matter for some people?

Look at the Upton Sinclair social justice types, expounding upon their beliefs because The Jungle! was perceived as some hard-hitting evidence. Or look those who cite Lord of the Flies as evidence that free markets won't work.


What can we say about such people?
(let's keep it diplomatic)

That you like to troll.... and go off topic.

Focus, player. We're talking about the influence of documentaries and silly fiction posing as non-fiction which serves to reinforce people's cognitive bias.

This is completely relevant to the Mermaids. I'm finding a similarity here. Somehow, that's trolling, but then again, anything which you don't like can be considered trolling. You should go find one of those "what is trolling?" threads, and get back to us on that.

Except, you seemed to have gone out of your way to pick topics with which you know I would disagree, so.. trolling.

But nice try anyway. This was just a "for fun" thread. We have plenty of serious discussions of bias out there. Happy to debate you, again, in any of them.

There was a disclaimer after the show saying that it was a work of fiction and that it was done for entertainment value only. I thought it was pretty interesting, and I watched it live when it aired. So yeah, work of fiction. Kind of like the dragon show they did (or animal planet, whichever) a few years ago. They said that dragons did not exist, but they showed that dragons could have existed had evolution gone a certain way. Which is exactly what they did with this show. Showing that, if things had gone a certain, mermaids (different, yet also similar to what we know) could have existed.