| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 10: |
Line 10: |
| | | | |
| | ==Explanation== | | ==Explanation== |
| − | This comic provides a satirical take on the intricate layers of scientific critique and consensus. [[Cueball]] stands as a representative of the scientific community, addressing the audience with a statement that encapsulates the recursive nature of scientific debate. The comic touches on the propensity within the scientific fields to oscillate between embracing new evidence and adhering to established consensus. It reflects on the inclination to reject new findings not because they lack merit, but because they conflict with the prevailing theories that have weathered previous scrutiny and dissent. Here is what Cueball is saying, simplified:
| + | {{incomplete|Created by a DOGSTREAM - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} |
| | | | |
| − | <blockquote>"Most of us assume the following: That when a lot of people didn't agree with what most experts said, those experts stopped paying attention to new facts that didn't fit their ideas. But actually..."</blockquote>
| + | This comic provides a satirical take on the intricate layers of scientific critique and consensus. [[Cueball]] stands as a representative of the scientific community, addressing the audience with a statement that encapsulates the recursive nature of scientific debate. The comic touches on the propensity within the scientific fields to oscillate between embracing new evidence and adhering to established consensus. It reflects on the inclination to reject new findings not because they lack merit, but because they conflict with the prevailing theories that have weathered previous scrutiny and dissent. |
| | | | |
| − | Overall, the comic offers a funny yet deep look at how scientists think and argue. It shows that in science, people often change their minds between new discoveries and what most people already believe. The character Cueball represents scientists and explains this complicated process. The comic starts by showing how scientists sometimes don't like new ideas if they don't fit with what most people already think. This happens even if the new ideas might be true. It shows a kind of tug-of-war in science: sometimes scientists are more open to new things, and other times they stick to old ideas. Also, the comic says that when people don't agree with the usual thinking, they might also ignore new facts that don't match their own ideas. Everyone in science might miss something important because they're too focused on their own beliefs.
| + | The statement begins by acknowledging a shift in attitude, where "conventional wisdom," the accepted understanding within the community, has come under fire. This skepticism towards the status quo is not uncommon in scientific practice, where evidence is continuously scrutinized. However, the comic suggests that the reaction against accepted norms can sometimes lead to the dismissal of new data, not on the basis of its validity, but due to its misalignment with the current consensus. This reveals a tension between the progress of knowledge and the comfort of established belief systems. |
| | | | |
| − | Cueball's words in the comic are like peeling an onion in science, showing different layers of arguments and disagreements. The comic suggests that sometimes, even when scientists are trying to move away from old ideas, they might not notice new facts that actually support these old ideas. Cueball seems to agree with this view but then starts to say "however," like he's going to give a ''rebuttal'' opinion or explain the situation in a new way. Maybe Cueball will offer a new explanation about how scientists argue or say that all sides in science have good points but sometimes misunderstand each other. This could mean that the debates in science are not as simple as they seem and that everyone might have a piece of the truth.
| + | Furthermore, the backlash against conventional wisdom is not a straightforward rejection but is layered with its own biases, implying that the dissenters may also fall prey to ignoring contradicting evidence. The comic thus highlights a multi-faceted argument within the scientific community, where there are multiple 'levels' of disagreement and rebuttal, each building upon the last. |
| | | | |
| − | The title text serves as an extension of this theme, offering a linguistic maze that mirrors the complexity and sometimes absurdity of academic discourse. It whimsically encapsulates how a challenge to mainstream thought can solidify into its own dogma, necessitating further revisionist waves, in an endless cycle of intellectual evolution and revolution. This self-referential loop wittily underscores {{w|Thomas Kuhn}}'s notion of the '{{w|Structure of Scientific Revolutions}},' suggesting that what is considered revolutionary at one time may become the very dogma that future revolutions seek to overturn. The title text delights in linguistic acrobatics, stringing together a series of portmanteau and near-repetitive phrases that dance on the tongue with the finesse of a verbal gymnast. "Mainstream dogma" suggests widely accepted beliefs, but it swiftly mutates into "dogmatic revisionism," a playful jab at the stubborn insistence on reforming the norm. This revisionism doesn't just adjust the current; it becomes "mainstream dogmatism" in its own right, a new orthodoxy birthed from the rebellion. And then, with a flourish, it yields to an even more whimsically coined "rematic mainvisionist dogstream," a hilarious {{w|spoonerism}} that could leave even the most loquacious academic's head spinning. This nonsensical cascade mocks the sometimes pretentious and convoluted language that can plague scholarly communication, turning serious dialogue into a merry-go-round of terms that are as circular in progression as they are in logic. This nonsense sentence may also be mocking the way in which, when you get this many layers deep in waves of consensus and counter-consensus, all these terms start to lose any real meaning, and become mere empty labels to be thrown around as terms of deprecation or abuse between the competing factions.
| + | Cueball's statement dissects the nuanced ballet of scientific thought through a sequence of phrases, each peeling back a layer of the academic onion. It starts with "new evidence," a catalyst in the scientific method, often propelling fields into uncharted territory. This evidence is termed "inconvenient," hinting at its discordance with established knowledge. It is not simply the evidence itself but the reaction to it that steers the narrative; researchers are said to "ignore" it, a deliberate sidestep that speaks to the inherent bias against paradigm shifts. Then, the "prevailing consensus" is introduced, standing as the bastion of current understanding, which is subjected to a "backlash," indicating a robust counter-movement rooted in skepticism. This backlash is twofold: it is against the consensus and is also being critiqued by what has become "conventional wisdom." The phrase culminates in a "however," a linguistic pivot that signals Cueball's own dissent from this meta-consensus, adding yet another reflective surface to the hall of mirrors that is scientific discourse. |
| | | | |
| − | {| class="wikitable"
| + | The title text serves as an extension of this theme, offering a linguistic maze that mirrors the complexity and sometimes absurdity of academic discourse. It whimsically encapsulates how a challenge to mainstream thought can solidify into its own dogma, necessitating further revisionist waves, in an endless cycle of intellectual evolution and revolution. This self-referential loop wittily underscores {{w|Thomas Kuhn}}'s notion of the '{{w|Structure of Scientific Revolutions}},' suggesting that what is considered revolutionary at one time may become the very dogma that future revolutions seek to overturn. The title text delights in linguistic acrobatics, stringing together a series of portmanteau and near-repetitive phrases that dance on the tongue with the finesse of a verbal gymnast. "Mainstream dogma" suggests widely accepted beliefs, but it swiftly mutates into "dogmatic revisionism," a playful jab at the stubborn insistence on reforming the norm. This revisionism doesn't just adjust the current; it becomes "mainstream dogmatism" in its own right, a new orthodoxy birthed from the rebellion. And then, with a flourish, it yields to an even more whimsically coined "rematic mainvisionist dogstream," a hilarious concoction that could leave even the most loquacious academic's head spinning. This nonsensical cascade mocks the sometimes pretentious and convoluted language that can plague scholarly communication, turning serious dialogue into a merry-go-round of terms that are as circular in progression as they are in logic. |
| − | ! Title text term
| |
| − | ! (Possible) meaning
| |
| − | ! Nature of the term
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | Mainstream dogma
| |
| − | | The popular and currently unchallenged set of beliefs that comfortably flow with the academic current.
| |
| − | | Real
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | Dogmatic revisionism | |
| − | | The stubborn insistence on changing established views, with a religious zeal for rewriting the scholarly scripture.
| |
| − | | Unlikely combination of real words | |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | Revisionist mainstream
| |
| − | | Once the avant-garde, now the new normal; the rebel ideas that have become the establishment.
| |
| − | | Unlikely combination of real words
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | Dogmatism
| |
| − | | An unshakable adherence to the new creed, now fervently preached as the one true academic gospel. The word comes from the Greek [[wikt:δόγμα|δόγμα]] meaning ‘that which is believed’, and is unrelated to canines.
| |
| − | | Real
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | Rematic
| |
| − | | Spontaneously repeating under its own impetus; or, revisionist dogma; or perhaps related to "remake" or "remix," implying a recycled, refurbished set of ideas in vogue once more.
| |
| − | | Not a real word
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | Mainvisionist
| |
| − | | A visionary yet mainstream adherent, with sights set on steering the scholarly ship into familiar waters.
| |
| − | | Not a real word
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | Dogstream
| |
| − | | The current of thought that flows doggedly along, resistant to change and comfortably narrow. Taken literally, a river of dogs.
| |
| − | | Not a real word
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | | Mainvisionist dogstream
| |
| − | | The dominant narrative that's been revised so often, it's hard to distinguish from its own parody.
| |
| − | | Not real words
| |
| − | |}
| |
| | | | |
| | ==Transcript== | | ==Transcript== |
| − | :[Cueball, hand raised with a finger held up, stands behind a lectern on a high podium speaking into a microphone on the lectern. Behind him is a banner, with four lines of illegible writing above a (blank) picture at the bottom.]
| + | {{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} |
| | + | |
| | :Cueball: It's become conventional wisdom that the backlash against the prevailing consensus led researchers to ignore inconvenient new evidence. However... | | :Cueball: It's become conventional wisdom that the backlash against the prevailing consensus led researchers to ignore inconvenient new evidence. However... |
| | | | |
| Line 66: |
Line 31: |
| | | | |
| | {{comic discussion}} | | {{comic discussion}} |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Science]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Public speaking]]
| |
| − | [[Category:Scientific research]]
| |
