Re: T. rex vision

[lbowlds@geosociety.org (Larry Bowlds)]

In <9502281509.AA13264@alpha.zk3.dec.com> larrys@zk3.dec.com writes:
>Ray McAllister <mcallist@gate.net>:
>>Larry and gang,
>>  Aren't we taking the exact significance of T-rex vision too far? 
>>We, the dinosaur buffs are quite concerned but I'll bet if you ask 100 
>>people at random, only a couple will remember the "stay still" bit and 
>>since they will never? meet up with a T-rex even those couple will not be 
>>affected.

>Ray, it's not so much t-rex vision in and of itself.  If
>that were the only, or even the most egregious, error made
>in the popular consciousness, I would be ecstatic. But what
>_I_ see is a pattern of scientific disinformation - and not
>just with dinosaurs - where inaccuracies and disinformation
>propagates itself from generation to generation.  Why?  Because
>it's too much trouble for people to be _bothered_ to be accurate,
>it's far easier to just coast on what's at hand.  Like the teach-
>er mentioned elsewhere on this thread who decided that rhinos
>must be descended from dinosaurs because a broken monoclonius
>looked sort of like a rhino, we are slowly crumbling the mortar
>of our educational system.  One incident is funny.  Several is
>cause for concern - and some of these are epidemic in our educ-
>ational so-called "system", where upwards of half the student
>couldn't even find the US on a globe.  Worse, this same attitude
>is very prevalent in gov't, where non-factual "studies" and even
>real studies, condensed down to the point where both real data
>and cautions about validity have been lost, become the basis for
>actual legislation.

>And there just isn't a need for it, because I don't think it is
>at all difficult to get things _right_ in the first place.  If
>Spielberg really _had_ to have his scene, a simple bit of throw-
>away dialog, as was used in the book, about the effect of the
>frog DNA on vision would have been easy to include, but he, like
>so many others, just coasted - easier and who could tell but a
>few dinosaur nuts?  Indeed.  But why should it be so restricted?
>If people walked about the outside of the starship Enterprise
>without space suits, _anyone_ could see that was wrong.  Is that
>so much easier?

>regards,
>Larry Smith

Well, I guess I'm just a cynic, but I expected worse from the movie.
I was just amazed that the two paleontologists (male v.p. and female
paleobotanist) didn't have serious personality disorders. Typically,
movies portray men of science as old, totally lacking in social
skills, and self-centered with delusions of grandeur. If they're not
old, movies typically show them as "football jock" types who invariably
prefer to use their physical prowess rather than their minds to solve
problems--thereby implying that even they don't believe in a scientific
approach to problem solving.

Women of science are depicted as either (1) ugly old maids or (2)
beautiful but misguided women hiding behind horn-rimmed glasses and
an old-fashioned hairdo who are patiently waiting for the "right
man" to come along and "rescue" them.

What could be worse? Well, the movie industry has aimed movies at my
children that portray students who are interested in science as nerds.
This has become so popular that one series of movies has used the word
"nerds" in its movie titles. What does the dictionary say about the word
"nerd"? Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th edition),
(c) 1993, defines "nerd" as follows: "an unstylish, unatttractive, or
socially inept person; esp.: one slavishly devoted to intellectual or
academic pursuits... ."

Gross revenue returns for Jurassic Park are the largest in movie
history. What was the movie's theme? -- science out of control! Do
you honestly think that record numbers of people would have seen
this movie if they didn't tacitly believe that there is something
sinister or wrong with science? Science has a terrible image problem
in this country. It may be "guilt by association," but geologists
and paleontologists share that image problem. I don't think that
the entertainment media created this image problem; however, I do
think they perpetuate it. How to solve it? I don't know.

One other thing. Several posts on this thread have complained about
the inaccuracies associated with the depiction of dinosaurs in
Jurassic Park, the movie. Put this in perspective. Movies generally
don't do a good job of accurately depicting anything. Even the sex
in movies isn't real! I understand that many children (and adults)
came away from Jurassic Park with some inaccurate ideas about
dinosaurs; however, I believe that this is the least damaging thing
that movie did. Something has to be done about the image of science,
which is far more serious.

Sorry to be so long-winded :-). How do others feel about this?

another Larry

-- 
*---------------------------------------------
*Larry S. Bowlds        lbowlds@geosociety.org
*Geological Society of America
*Bulletin Managing Editor
*(303) 447-2020, ext. 147        
*---------------------------------------------