Hi lysithea
To clarify again: I did not see the show but was making a guess about its contents based on watching the preview; and that guess was offered for confirmation or clarification by those who did see the show Walking with Cavemen.

lysithea wrote:
"but you are right. Scientific and/or well educated people seem to leave a lot of emotion out of their products."

Mike: The point in anthropological "cultural relativism" is not for the scientist to BE unemotional but to report the information accurately before analyzing it. The emotional and mental life of "cavemen" is an important thing that DID occur. I want to know more about how the program covered that. The previews did not look promising on those points.

lysithea wrote:
"Not that they themselves are that way. But I think science in general (not just archealogical history) is viewed as a hard, cold, analytical branch of reality. I don't think it is, but everyone I've ever known has."

I don't think it is "cold," which is an archaic or relative term for energy distribution and dispersal. It must indeed be analytical. Science must test concepts; in fact, science exists to enable us manage, control and predict phenomena. That can only done in an atmosphere where results are subject to evaluation and measure -- right? I don't mind that at all.
I think you're saying you appreciate another side to science -- the delight in good work and improved comprehension. Yet it seems clear that
bad persons as well as good persons (to use a couple more archaic terms) may both do science.

lysithea wrote:
"Perhaps it is respect for something bigger than oneself, or perhaps it is ignorance.
I agree with you though. Producers and writers should not over do it in analysis when in reality there was much more going on."

My analysis says to include emotion in the show.

Mike

• That's a good analysis of the situation. - lysithea - June 23, 2003 - 02:46 UTC