Might I dare to make the observation that perhaps your statement:
"The circadian rhythm metaphor could possibly be substituted with “chronological sequence” which would achieve the same descriptive result but with greater clarity."
somewhat missed the point.
I don't think they are trying to make their language clear. I think they are attempting to give their work a veneer of science, particularly the "softer" science of biology. The top of their webpage describes "information disorder ecologies"....ecologies, circadian rhythms, their use of ridiculous word "graphs" I see these all as attempts to drape the veil of science over their work.
Rather than understanding that technical descriptions and precise wording and graphs are ways to accurately and precisely explain a scientific position ie a byproduct of the scientific method, they seem to think that use of such language IS the scientific method.
They use terms like informational ecologies because they think it makes there work scientific. They use words graphs because they understand that science uses graphs a lot.....so if they also use graphs then there work is scientific.
It is scientific gravy....but without the roast dinner. Or even the plate.
It would be comically childish, if there opinions were not given so much sway in media and by government officials.
Well done. I came by this through Bryce Edwards' NZ Politics Daily and am very glad that I've learned of your work. Please, sincerely, keep up the objective investigative work that you are producing.
Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging comment. I will do my best in future but some of my writings are not quite so "heavy duty". I see Bryce listed the links under my real world identity (which probably isn't that much of a secret).
Wow. What an amazing effort. Thank you sir.
Might I dare to make the observation that perhaps your statement:
"The circadian rhythm metaphor could possibly be substituted with “chronological sequence” which would achieve the same descriptive result but with greater clarity."
somewhat missed the point.
I don't think they are trying to make their language clear. I think they are attempting to give their work a veneer of science, particularly the "softer" science of biology. The top of their webpage describes "information disorder ecologies"....ecologies, circadian rhythms, their use of ridiculous word "graphs" I see these all as attempts to drape the veil of science over their work.
Rather than understanding that technical descriptions and precise wording and graphs are ways to accurately and precisely explain a scientific position ie a byproduct of the scientific method, they seem to think that use of such language IS the scientific method.
They use terms like informational ecologies because they think it makes there work scientific. They use words graphs because they understand that science uses graphs a lot.....so if they also use graphs then there work is scientific.
It is scientific gravy....but without the roast dinner. Or even the plate.
It would be comically childish, if there opinions were not given so much sway in media and by government officials.
Thanks once again an excellent post.
Well done. I came by this through Bryce Edwards' NZ Politics Daily and am very glad that I've learned of your work. Please, sincerely, keep up the objective investigative work that you are producing.
Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging comment. I will do my best in future but some of my writings are not quite so "heavy duty". I see Bryce listed the links under my real world identity (which probably isn't that much of a secret).