|
|
Post by sbell on Jun 11, 2008 15:55:47 GMT
I was going to put the following into a reply (it might be obvious to whom it was originally addressed, I don't know), but I figured it could just start its own thread, since it will come up ad nauseum anyway. I also know I said I was getting drawn into this, but so be it:
[rant]This is the DINO TOY forum. Since none of these animals are known at all anymore (save for mammoths and the odd other animal that has been found frozen), perhaps some would prefer figures based solely on the known material, with no reconstruction at all. Admittedly, we might get bored with our incomplete skeleton models, but I suppose that the use of evolutionary biology, physiology, taxonomy/cladistics and comparative anatomy are so distasteful to some that it would be better to never take risks (that aren't really that risky). Also better leave colour off, since we can't know that (patterns occasionally, actual colour no). And I am not claiming that there would never be controversy (in fact, I hope there would be) over some reconstructions.
This would also render the works of fellows like Knight, Burian, Anton, Rey, and a huge host of other artists (including many from this forum) pointless, because how dare they try to extrapolate appearance and physiology by comparing known materials to found materials. Unless they have a photo or video time machine, of course.
Most sciences, particularly historical and descriptive sciences, have an artistic element to them. There is imagination required. We may not always agree with, or even like, the reconstructions and interpretations given, but if they are based on available evidence there can at least be justification.
I'm sorry if I sound hostile--I am--but I am sick and tired of people that clearly don't understand the methods of science who try to use shaky, spurious, or fraudulent claims to somehow render it pointless (or perhaps powerless?) for whatever reasons they have. If you don't like science, or trust its methods, fine. But don't pretend it doesn't have value. If you don't like medicine, GPS, computers, automobiles, plastics, buildings, clothing, tools, wheels, fire, or the many innovations that exist because of strides made in physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, engineering, mathematics, etc. that's not a failing of the sciences. No, they don't have all the answers, but they are working towards the explanations. That's what science does. It takes what is known, and bases conclusions on what is known and what can be extrapolated. When new data comes in, or new and better interpretations are brought forward (examples: tyrannosaurid arms; Helicoprion tooth whorls; diplodocid skulls; active & intelligent dinosaurs) science tests this, incorporates the data, and strengthens/modifies/throws out hypotheses and conclusions as necessary (yes, some individuals will hold to old theories, but that lies with people, not the process).
And one thing that is never given--so what's the alternative exactly? What other discipline is going to make attempts at what the tail of Dunkleosteus looked like, or the average mass of a sauropod, or make estimates of the extinction rates in the Permian?
Religion? Philosophy? Humanities? Language studies? Politics? Popular media?
[/rant]
So here is a question that I can never get an answer to--if people are so hostile to evolution,science, paleontology, interpretations/reconstructions, etc, how and why do you appreciate Dinosaur/Prehistoric animal models? Just because they look neat? Is there nothing more to it than that?
|
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jun 11, 2008 17:08:42 GMT
You almost make it sound like a conspiracy. As far as I'm concerned, nobody in this forum thinks that science should be replaced. If some of us think that some interpretations (i.e. the feathers) are off, it's well within the boundaries of science. As for myself, I tend to think that the feathered business is overhyped by the media, that's the main reason why I tend to distrust miracle findings, but if the final veredict is that all deinonychosaurs had feathers, if someday time traveling is possible and we find out that it's true, so be it, it would be stupid of me to oppose it, but I still won't buy any feathered replica.
As for toys, I think all of us tend to buy accurate figures, but then again, accurate has only a historical meaning, it's only accurate at some point of time. You said it yourself, artistic renderings are fundamentally a trial-and-error process. That's why many replicas are dated. But is it accuracy, or better yet, is it the illusion of accuracy the only criterion for quality replicas? I tend to believe it isn't. Collecting dinosaur replicas is not science, one always considers a specific context. The Marx T-Rex is not accurate by today's standards but it's quite collectable. So I guess my point would be, as much as it infuriates you, collecting replicas has to do a lot with personal taste and experience.
If not, what then? Will you keep forever the replicas you think are accurate now without buying new ones? Or will you dispose of the ones that will surely become obsolete in years to come? Both options seem ridiculous to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jun 11, 2008 17:27:54 GMT
Who doesn't believe in evolution. When I first saw the Zallingers age of reptiles I was hooked. I would like the Toy Dinosaurs I buy know to be as up to date as possible. Retro is cool in collecting the originals but I don't think I need new retro dinosaurs.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jun 11, 2008 17:36:39 GMT
You seem to have an issue with Religion. To you Science is God therefore God exist. However you won't admit there is a God. Are you Judas? You are very intelligent and know more about science then I do. I enjoy the bits of knowledge you give us. You seem to take it all too seriously. How many fingers a T-Rex has isn't going to save the planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jun 11, 2008 17:47:35 GMT
You almost make it sound like a conspiracy. As far as I'm concerned, nobody in this forum thinks that science should be replaced. If some of us think that some interpretations (i.e. the feathers) are off, it's well within the boundaries of science. As for myself, I tend to think that the feathered business is overhyped by the media, that's the main reason why I tend to distrust miracle findings, but if the final veredict is that all deinonychosaurs had feathers, if someday time traveling is possible and we find out that it's true, so be it, it would be stupid of me to oppose it, but I still won't buy any feathered replica. As for toys, I think all of us tend to buy accurate figures, but then again, accurate has only a historical meaning, it's only accurate at some point of time. You said it yourself, artistic renderings are fundamentally a trial-and-error process. That's why many replicas are dated. But is it accuracy, or better yet, is it the illusion of accuracy the only criterium for quality replicas? I tend to believe it isn't. Collecting dinosaur replicas is not science, one always considers a specific context. The Marx T-Rex is not accurate by today's standards but it's quite collectable. So I guess my point would be, as much as it infuriates you, collecting replicas has to do a lot with personal taste and experience. If not, what then? Will you keep forever the replicas you think are accurate now without buying new ones? Or will you dispose of the ones that will surely become obsolete in years to come? Both options seem ridiculous to me. It is mostly a response to such sentiments as this: "As you know when science does't [sic] know something they make something up that they think might be right. There still doing it today. A single tooth and you can have a whole model dinosaur." or this: " If science can't explain the fundamental events of the universe (how the universe began, how life started), if we have no empirical evidence, and I mean none, just a bunch of beautifully constructed but very unstable theories, how can we affirm that science is more valid than religion? I mean, I would like to hear a scientific explanation, but so far none sounds too convincing to me" or this: "What is absolute truth its not science or religion. Science in many cases is just an educated guess. Scientist and religious leaders are all imperfect." or this: "But isn't science trying to substitute the answers that religion provided?..science is trying to come up with answers for questions that should be answered by religion and viceversa [sic]." Having said that, it seems that the level of hostility or mistrust in science is a strong current here, at least among some (many remain silent). Why? I don't know. Most of it has to do with scientific literacy and experience, and the torquing that has occurred in the general mindset because of how it is taught in schools, and how it is portrayed in the media. And I am not getting into feathers again. There are definitely sentiments here that seem to want to deride the processes of science behind the hobby. Why? When reconstructions are based on comparative anatomy as much as on direct fossil evidence, how does that invalidate them? As a science, the field is highly testable (although sometimes the evidence takes a long time to come forth, like Tiktaalik, whose general body plan was predicted based on existing fossils of sarcopterygians and ealry tetrapods). That is why it is a science. And there would be no reason to throw out old-fashioned models--the iconography is a great, physical history of the thought processes of scientists as the science itself matured. But if someone came out with a Crystal Palace style Iguanodon without the guise of being a retro/historical figure, it would be lambasted as ridiculous. I personally have no love lost for the days of kangaroo-dinos, but to each their own. However, asking if accuracy is a major criteria for the models we purchase, look at the Dino Toy blog reviews. Accuracy is one of the major points of discussion--that is likely why there won't be any figures made by Playskool, Imaginext, or (probably) chinasaurs in there (unless they are truly unusual, like Pleo or ChapMei, or historical, like MPC & Marx). When a figure is not made accurately, very little else matters--good sculpting, interesting paint jobs, dynamic poses, whatever. Short of the legacy companies (Starlux, Linde, aforementioned MPC and Marx, a few others) most toy collectors won't go out of their way if the science is poorly represented (the original Bullyland or Carnegie T rex, for example, is not exactly sought after). |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jun 11, 2008 17:48:58 GMT
Who doesn't believe in evolution. When I first saw the Zallingers age of reptiles I was hooked. I would like the Toy Dinosaurs I buy know to be as up to date as possible. Retro is cool in collecting the originals but I don't think I need new retro dinosaurs. You slipped in while I was posting--I am with you, that retro is fine and all, but I personally don't need (or want) to collect them. |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jun 11, 2008 17:56:00 GMT
You seem to have an issue with Religion. To you Science is God therefore God exist. However you won't admit there is a God. Are you Judas? You are very intelligent and know more about science then I do. I enjoy the bits of knowledge you give us. You seem to take it all too seriously. How many fingers a T-Rex has isn't going to save the planet. Science is not god because 'science' is just a word to describe the process of explaining physical phenomena based on physical, natural observations. 'GOD' is another word used to describe the source of supernatural explanations. And I do take science seriously--paleontology, admittedly, won't save any lives (I cam not creative enough right now to come up with a far-fetched scenario  ) but scientific understanding and its requisite critical thought and skepticism (note: not cynicism) would certainly make this a better world--people would be more likely to question the foolishness handed out by 'authorities' of any stripe, and would be equipped with the tools to understand and argue why it is foolishness. BTW, what's wrong with Judas--if he didn't do his job, the soldiers would not have found the right guy, and then no sacrifice. |
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jun 11, 2008 20:40:50 GMT
Having said that, it seems that the level of hostility or mistrust in science is a strong current here, at least among some (many remain silent). Why? *sigh* Whatever. I'm not going to discuss this any further. There are definitely sentiments here that seem to want to deride the processes of science behind the hobby. Again, you're the only one who thinks so. Dinosaur replicas are by definition educational and their link with with science is unquestionable. None of us would be able to take that out of them even if we wanted. I've learned a lot about prehistoric animals ever since I became a collector and I intend to keep on learning, but even if one of the forum members decided to collect dinosaurs just because they look pretty or because they remind him of his childhood or whatever, so what? Who are we to judge him? However, asking if accuracy is a major criteria for the models we purchase, look at the Dino Toy blog reviews. Accuracy is one of the major points of discussion--that is likely why there won't be any figures made by Playskool, Imaginext, or (probably) chinasaurs in there (unless they are truly unusual, like Pleo or ChapMei, or historical, like MPC & Marx). Accuracy is indeed one of the main issues, but it's not the only one. Otherwise you wouldn't collect Yowies or Starlux. There wouldn't be any Marx or Linde or MPC collectors either. Short of the legacy companies (Starlux, Linde, aforementioned MPC and Marx, a few others) most toy collectors won't go out of their way if the science is poorly represented Papos are the most sought after right now and let me tell you, they're not entirely accurate, but many people prefer them because they remind them of the Jurassic Park concept and because they look real, is that science? There is certainly a vestige of scientific interpretation, but not an entirely correct one. And I think this leads us to personal experience, many people become interested in dinos not because they represent the findings of science, but because they feel attracted to them in a very aesthetic sense. |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jun 11, 2008 21:14:33 GMT
Playskool has been around along time, somebody must be buying them.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jun 11, 2008 21:16:19 GMT
The old legacy dinosaurs were considered pretty correct for there time.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jun 11, 2008 21:19:25 GMT
People have been skeptical of authority for a long time but it really hasn't changed anything. Face it eventually you will be extinct (dead) and nothing you have said or done scientifically or not will matter. 200 years from now will you even be remembered.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jun 11, 2008 22:18:15 GMT
People have been skeptical of authority for a long time but it really hasn't changed anything. Face it eventually you will be extinct (dead) and nothing you have said or done scientifically or not will matter. 200 years from now will you even be remembered. I have kids, and as long as they continue the trend, then one way or the other yes, even if it's only genetically. And individuals don't go extinct. And I'm not sure how that impacts on skepticism or authority. |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jun 11, 2008 22:21:02 GMT
The old legacy dinosaurs were considered pretty correct for there time. They were, but when people collect them now, it is usually for more nostalgic purposes--they remember them as kids--or they are unusual (that's why I like my Starlux mammals and fish--no one else has ever made them). |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jun 11, 2008 22:38:31 GMT
Having said that, it seems that the level of hostility or mistrust in science is a strong current here, at least among some (many remain silent). Why? *sigh* Whatever. I'm not going to discuss this any further. Again, you're the only one who thinks so. Dinosaur replicas are by definition educational and their link with with science is unquestionable. None of us would be able to take that out of them even if we wanted. I've learned a lot about prehistoric animals ever since I became a collector and I intend to keep on learning, but even if one of the forum members decided to collect dinosaurs just because they look pretty or because they remind him of his childhood or whatever, so what? Who are we to judge him? Accuracy is indeed one of the main issues, but it's not the only one. Otherwise you wouldn't collect Yowies or Starlux. There wouldn't be any Marx or Linde or MPC collectors either. Short of the legacy companies (Starlux, Linde, aforementioned MPC and Marx, a few others) most toy collectors won't go out of their way if the science is poorly represented Papos are the most sought after right now and let me tell you, they're not entirely accurate, but many people prefer them because they remind them of the Jurassic Park concept and because they look real, is that science? There is certainly a vestige of scientific interpretation, but not an entirely correct one. And I think this leads us to personal experience, many people become interested in dinos not because they represent the findings of science, but because they feel attracted to them in a very aesthetic sense. When I stated that many remain silent, I meant on the issue as a whole, so I don't know where every, or even most, people think. And I don't know if I am the only one who thinks what I am saying--I speak for myself, not necessarily others. Be that as it may, it still has not answered the question that kind of spurred all of this into my mind--people making claims that scientists "make stuff up" and such nonsense. So the question I had (worded badly I suppose) is simply why are there people that think that of science as somehow bad? That scientists shouldn't be trusted overall? Does it affect the collecting? And do I judge? No. People can collect for whatever their reasons, just like I do. What I want to know is for people that don't like science overall, or especially (let's get it out there but please let's not get too far into it) don't like evolution, how can they enjoy toys/models/replicas that are, as you said, inherently educational and science based? And yes, personal experience has a definite effect--yet I grew up with JaRu and toothy chinasaurs, and I have no fondness for any of those (except the Uintatherium of course). I would guess that much of Papo's appeal is actually the JP effect--they look realistic, and are well sculpted, and have a cinematic air about them. If they stretch a bit, it is because of the literary device of dinosaurs, not the science. |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jun 12, 2008 0:45:41 GMT
I agree with you about Starlux. I also like their cavemen (13 different poses). I also like Edaphosaurus, Diplocaulus, for similar reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jun 12, 2008 1:26:08 GMT
I agree with you about Starlux. I also like their cavemen (13 different poses). I also like Edaphosaurus, Diplocaulus, for similar reasons. Yeah, I really like those guys too--really, most of the Starlux figures are great, except for their dinosaurs. And I just realized--wow I sound like a crank in this thread, don't I? I don't really mean to, or to come down on anyone or anything. Just a curiosity that kind of got out of control. |
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jun 12, 2008 7:14:42 GMT
"Playskool has been around along time, somebody must be buying them." I have got them, and like them. I think they are neat looking toys, like the colors and style, and that's why I collect them. To me it's that simple. I don't try to compare them to the "realistic" figures.... IMHO, "realistic dinosaur figures" treads mostly in the realm of resin scientific models. I collect flintstones toys too, and I am not the sort who believes that man saddled up sauropods....I just happen to like toys. "Face it eventually you will be extinct (dead) and nothing you have said or done scientifically or not will matter. 200 years from now will you even be remembered. " I and everything else that lives, does die, and every species goes extinct in time...we do though remember plenty of folks who made achievements in paleontology though...and of course other sciences. I myself hope that in some way by working to breed and work with endangered species plans, that animals who I helped nurture live on to benefit their populations, and that my efforts will trickle down after I have fed something/s else. "So the question I had (worded badly I suppose) is simply why are there people that think that of science as somehow bad? That scientists shouldn't be trusted overall? Does it affect the collecting?" Ok...well, I am going to rant..now....(if you are overly religious, please just skip this) The reason I have been steering clear of this sort of thread is because I feel strongly that YES, that is how the general public, at least where I am located in the USA, does think of science...And not only that....they are now putting science in the same playing field as religion. The give people who should be shucking corn for a living and babbling in a nuthouse the same footing as learned people (I heard it mirrored here, in the "science is your god crappery) Bleck. Ick. Barf. No, Science is my science. If I believe in a god, your god, my god, many gods with various arms, heck, an invisible pink unicorn that craps rainbow marsh mellows, thats my business.....IT HAS NO BEARING OVER MY "BELIEF" (read - understanding, because thats what it is, not "belief") IN SCIENCE. Seriously. For dogs sake, 48% of Americans believe that God created "humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" - hubpages.com/hub/Poll-Most-Americans-Dont-Believe-EvolutionTHAT SHOULD HORRIFY PEOPLE. Well...smart people. mildly smart people. Heck, even dumb people, if they bother to learn.... I blame Extremist Religion (mostly creation/anti evolution)/Public schools (how much is there really taught about evolution/fossil record to begin with! Frustratingly little! - I trach and let me tell you how much of this "we evolved from chimpanzees" bunk is flying around out there) and then Parents, and people in general for this stuff.......This whole country keeps getting dumber. And before/just in case anyone reads that and wishes to get into a creation/love god you poor lost soul/ NO I simply refuse to be drawn into an argument over that. I refuse to even take it off list. If you want to know where I am coming from ? Read a real book, not that work of fiction you keep trying to get me to read again....(I gave the last one to my pet raven so he could make it into holy confetti - (does that make him a holy crow ?) "And yes, personal experience has a definite effect--yet I grew up with JaRu and toothy chinasaurs, and I have no fondness for any of those (except the Uintatherium of course)." I collect many things. Some realistic, some even fossils, (can't get more real then that) some lovely well sculpted models. Some are simply silly toys. I look at it like the same reason I collect dragon figures. I do not see these things as "models" that have to be detail for detail accurate, as much as artful homage to the thing depicted, be it a T rex or an "amazon" woman holding the leash of a crazy looking dragon. I know "real dragons" only existed/exist in the mind of scared humans, who concocted them from the beasts that lurked around them, and maybe even early understandings of fossils. I just happen to like the "image" of dragons and figures of them. I feel this way to a degree with dinosaurs. I know that the Dinoriders T rex is hardly what a T rex looked like, but I am amused by it none the less. I simply like the way it looks. I played with as a kid, and I know that helps me like it more. I do enjoy many of the figures that have been finely crafted AND are also accurate. I seek to collect more of those, and like them alot. That doesn't mean that I'm going to toss my old bin style figures. Rant over. Time to sleep. |
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jun 12, 2008 16:10:33 GMT
For dogs sake, 48% of Americans believe that God created "humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" - hubpages.com/hub/Poll-Most-Americans-Dont-Believe-EvolutionTHAT SHOULD HORRIFY PEOPLE. Well...smart people. mildly smart people. Heck, even dumb people, if they bother to learn.... The first time I found out that there were people who actually believe that the world is 6000 years old, I wanted to puke. It's the middle ages all over again, they're trying to interpret their sacred texts as science text books, WTF?  I know that the Dinoriders T rex is hardly what a T rex looked like, but I am amused by it none the less. I simply like the way it looks. Exactly! |
|
|
|
Post by sbell on Jun 12, 2008 16:51:11 GMT
For dogs sake, 48% of Americans believe that God created "humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" - hubpages.com/hub/Poll-Most-Americans-Dont-Believe-EvolutionTHAT SHOULD HORRIFY PEOPLE. Well...smart people. mildly smart people. Heck, even dumb people, if they bother to learn.... The first time I found out that there were people who actually believe that the world is 6000 years old, I wanted to puke. It's the middle ages all over again, they're trying to interpret their sacred texts as science text books, WTF? I know that the Dinoriders T rex is hardly what a T rex looked like, but I am amused by it none the less. I simply like the way it looks. Exactly! On that last bit--I am certainly not against goofy figures or some such thing. I just don't go out of my way to get them. On the other hand, I am a diversity type of person and sometimes that drives me more than strict aesthetics or accuracy. For example, the only large scale Moschops is made by Playskool, so be it, and I do have one--it's pretty bad actually, with its giant, pointy teeth!. But I still like it. Same with that Dinoriders Placerias (I mean, come on, a Dollar Store company of some kind made a better one!). |
|
|
|
Post by giganotoigauana on Jun 13, 2008 1:41:37 GMT
Well there is this little museum by my house and its called Museum of Creation and Earths History. So i decided to go in and take a look. I was angered by it because they had a wall comparing people who believed in evolution basically to hitler. It also had a picture of him at the end of the wall concluding that everyone was bad like hitler. They also shown diagrams of trees, one being that of creation and the other for evolution. They had the creation tree blooming while the evoluton tree was wilting Other than that there was a mural depicting a stegosaurus walking onto the ark ramp.
|
|
) but scientific understanding and its requisite critical thought and skepticism (note: not cynicism) would certainly make this a better world--people would be more likely to question the foolishness handed out by 'authorities' of any stripe, and would be equipped with the tools to understand and argue why it is foolishness.
