The comparison to the unicorn is not saying Scotland has a secret breeding population. It is pointing out that an animal can become an official fact without people asking whether there is an animal behind it.
We put the label in an official place and then treat the official place as confirmation of the label. That is what interests me about zoo signs too.
The comparison to the unicorn is not saying Scotland has a secret breeding population. It is pointing out that an animal can become an official fact without people asking whether there is an animal behind it.
We put the label in an official place and then treat the official place as confirmation of the label. That is what interests me about zoo signs too.
−+Collapse or expand reply by brickwork
A sign with a scientific name makes people stop asking who chose the picture.
−+Collapse or expand reply by teaspoon
I have definitely used a label as reassurance before looking at the thing below it. I do it in museums as well.
−+Collapse or expand reply by nailbrush
There is still a step between trusting a label and proving fabrication. I would rather see that step discussed than another list of imaginary animals.
−+Collapse or expand reply by marl
A national symbol is not a biological claim. People can understand the unicorn as a symbol without believing it lives there.
−+Collapse or expand reply by flatlander
Then you agree it can have an official position without an animal. That is the comparison.
−+Collapse or expand reply by linen
People put the unicorn on things with a straight face. I don’t understand why this part bothers you more than that.