[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Abstracts & Illustrations

>I must emphasize that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH

>Tracy, as always (except during those strange bouts of periodic
insanity he
has...), makes a good point.

Just thought I should join the Insane (ask me about my last year and a
half as consultant and illustrator for popular publications and you'll
understand what insanity really means).
Now, if this thread is about  repetition of old scientific illustrations
in scientific books, just imagine the popular press that pretends to
seriously inform people.
There's such a constant and uncritical stream  of disinformation in so
many dinosaur-related publications that should be considered alarming.
This is because most publishers get the information by whatever falls in
their hands first and what seems more popular or more repeated in other
publications(no matter where it is coming from and no matter how ancient
it may be... sometimes as long as it is in the Internet is enough!).
Not because it was published in the science press at some point in
history is valid forever. It might have a history of science value, but
not a current scientific value.
Repeat the mistake until it becomes a 'truth'. Updating seems too much
an effort and sometimes is unpopular... remember that thing about
'people wanting certainty'? Or is it maybe that editors find cheap
boredom easier and more cost effective?
Of course, when we are talking about mistakes in science publications
the question becomes even more serious.

Back to the world of the living.

Luis Rey

Visit my website on http//:www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey