Found this in my bookmarks again. Does anyone still have the old photograph where they're working on the giraffe? I used to send that one to people and now I only have a very small copy.
The two recordings on Expose Giraffes both play. I remembered the Professor video much more clearly than the written introduction, which is probably why I thought I remembered the whole argument.
The Anonymous one is a different sort of message. I keep seeing people put a quote from one above a screenshot of the other. Please use the actual links.
The Lamarkian Quandary says the theory “relied entirely upon the alleged observations of giraffes”. I think that is why the page keeps coming back to it. The animal is supposed to be evidence for the explanation, then the explanation loses its authority and the animal carries on being evidence.
How much of what people think they have observed is actually the diagram they were taught? I remember a neck reaching for a branch much more clearly than I remember what the surrounding lesson said.
A recognizable shape is not the whole complaint. It is a shape which seems to arrive already demonstrating the lesson. The branch is nearly always where the neck needs it to be.
The neck is the convenient feature every explanation gets to use. It is apparently wrong to infer too much from it until the next explanation needs a very clear example.
I am asking whether the remembered observation is independent of the account. A drawing made to explain a theory is not an observation just because the drawing is familiar.
A diagram can leave everything fixed except the labels. That makes a change of explanation look very tidy. The giraffe never has to become less suited to being an illustration.
The original goes further than the diagram question: it calls the observations alleged. If you defend that sentence, the question is what was observed, not merely how well it was drawn.
Someone has found that old Expose Giraffes site again. New thread here. I remembered this post first, then spent half an hour trying to find a bookmark in a browser I no longer have.
I am asking whether the remembered observation is independent of the account. A drawing made to explain a theory is not an observation just because the drawing is familiar.
The animal-rights part explains the provocation. If the opponents go after the animal to make a point, they have let the other party choose what the point is about.
Flat Giraffers
Side Quests
Enlarge photograph ↗
Big Zoo
Paper Trails · for everyone saying i was making it up, i got my grandpa to find the paper and did a scan lol he was not happy
−+Collapse or expand reply by mothproof
This the photograph?
−+Collapse or expand reply by teaspoon
Yes. That's the one. Mine had almost no writing left under it.
Show more comments
−+Collapse or expand reply by windowseat
I still have the photograph with the loose covering saved. Never found where my copy came from.
−+Collapse or expand reply by mudlark
People are still replying. Not as many names I recognise though.
−+Collapse or expand reply by vellum
There is a later announcement from the same paper as well. Someone linked both in Paper Trails.
−+Collapse or expand reply by ribbedglass
I came back because the neck argument was still bothering me. I know how that sounds.
−+Collapse or expand reply by halfstep
I thought Voss was an old username until I actually opened the circus paper.