"Learning" from nature documentaries

By -
They are nice eye candy. And I suppose if they show you a picture of an elephant, you can surmise that, "Yes, such creatures probably exist." But I wouldn't trust them much further.

I happened to watch Wildest India and Wildest Indochina back-to-back. In the Himalayan episode of Wildest India, we are shown footage of what is described as a red panda coming down from a tree to try to attract a female wandering by, but to no avail.

In the Southwest China episode of Wildest Indochina, we are shown footage of what is described as a red panda coming down from a tree to drive off a male that has intruded on its territory.

Very interesting depictions of how red pandas interact, right? The only problem is that (and I just re-watched both scenes to make sure) it is the exact same footage in each instance! So in at least in one case (and perhaps both!), the voice over is total rubbish! Not only that, but in at least in one case (and perhaps both!), they are not actually filming in the country that is the subject of the documentary.

Comments

  1. Ken B6:38 PM

    Actually the descending panda was responding to a craigslist "cuck play" ad.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more