Just a brief note about the phrase, "blogging is the first draft of history," which in one quarter I've come across, at least, has been attributed to the Nobel Prize Committee, as a reason for turning down blogs for a Nobel Prize.
However, look for this on Google, and I don't think you'll find it. You may find this video of Jon Stewart interviewing Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post, in which she says, "blogging is the first draft of history."
It would be interesting to know whether she's quoting the Nobel Prize Committee, of course!
She also says blogging is a 'lot more fun than sex', but Stewart raises his eyebrows at that one.
The interview was in relation to the Huffington Post Complete Guide to Blogging, to which Arianna contributed an introduction.
Incidentally, while checking out the Huffington Post website, I came across a report that the size of dinosaurs has been vastly overestimated. Why does this not surprise me? I'm waiting for the day when they finally admit dinosaurs never actually existed - at least not in the way in which scientific artists, or artistic scientists have claimed. Dinosaurs, I suspect, are the 20th century's version of dragons.
4 comments:
I'm waiting for the day when they finally admit dinosaurs never actually existed - at least not in the way in which scientific artists, or artistic scientists have claimed. Dinosaurs, I suspect, are the 20th century's version of dragons.
Is this sarcasm? Of course dinosaurs existed. And they are dragons, or rather dragons are dinosaurs.
No, not entirely sarcasm. What I mean is that the claims made as to how much we know about dinosaurs often tend towards the fabulous: we have a smallish number of bones; we 'recreate' the structure of the dinosaur from these (and then, I think, often multiply it in size!). A bit of artistic licence, and off we go, making up dinosaur stories that are just as 'fabulous' as many dragon stories.
The article on the dragons is interesting, but I'm a bit sceptical still. Note the line: "Since their soft tissue is not generally preserved as a fossil..." The soft-tissue is never preserved, is it? No more than it is on humans - unless they're preserved in ice, and I'm not aware of any dinosaurs or dragons being preserved in ice. But of course, I could be wrong...
You have a point, Nebraska man was recreated along with his own family from just a tooth! And a pig tooth at that it turns out.
But soft tissue can be preserved fossilised as impressions, eg skin. Jellyfish are fossilised after all.
But it turns out that dinosaur soft tissue has been found. Which is an indication that they are not millions of years old; but such is the commitment to an ancient earth, they are claiming that soft-tissue can be preserved for millions of years. Unlikely.
I don't know a lot about dragon stories but I am not certain they are all fantastic. Stories may mythologise over time, but several seem descriptive, eg. the link above, and Beowulf.
Interesting about the soft tissue.
I think my concern about dinosaurs is that there's already a considerable mythology about them, which we happen to call by the name, 'science.'
Post a Comment