From Dr. Boli’s Celebrated Magazine(!?) comes THE DUCK:
ONCE TWO SCIENTISTS-it hardly matters what sort-were walking before dinner beside a pleasant pond with their friend, a reporter for the Dispatch, when they happened to notice a bird standing beside the water.
“I am a skeptic,” said the first scientist. “I demand convincing evidence before I make an assertion. But I believe I can identify that bird, beyond all reasonable doubt, as a duck.” The journalist nodded silently at this assertion.
“I also am a skeptic,” said the second, “but evidently of a more refined sort, for I demand a much higher standard of evidence than you do. I see no irrefutable evidence to back up your assertion that this object before us is even a bird, let alone positively identifying it as a duck.” The journalist raised his eyebrow sagely.
“But what of the feathers?” the first scientist demanded. “Surely you must have noticed the feathers, which are the veritable hallmark, so to speak, of a bird.”
“I have seen nearly identical feathers on a feather duster,” the second replied. “At present the evidence is not strong enough to say whether the object before us is a member of the avian genus Anas or a common household implement.” The journalist held his chin and pondered this revelation.
…
The first scientist slapped his forehead. Then, calming himself, he turned to his friend the reporter. “Since we seem unable to reach a conclusion,” he said, “would you be kind enough to favor us with your opinion?”
“Reputable scientists disagree,” said the journalist. “There is a debate. The question is far from settled. The truth probably lies between the two extremes of duck and not-duck.”
So the two scientists both stomped away in dudgeon and hostility, and the journalist, unable by himself to decide where to eat dinner, starved to death.
Go read it all, it’s definitely worth your time.
As good as this fable is, I would add a few details.
The first scientist has many other scientists agreeing with him, but they spend all their time talking to each other and measuring the exact size, color, density, count, etc. of the duck’s feathers, the precise volume and pitch of its quacks, etc., and not talking nearly enough to the public.
The second scientist has a huge following of non-scientists who have overriding financial and/or ideological reasons to deny the animal’s obvious ducktitude, who spend endless hours talking to the public at large and fooling them into thinking that either there’s a serious question about whether said animal is, in fact, a duck, or that it simply isn’t true.[1]
The journalist, fearing the demise of his industry and therefore his job, gleefully promotes and reports the “controversy”, in an attempt to garner as many readers (and therefore paying advertisers) as possible.
Enough of the public believes the second scientist and his marching drones that the starving journalist is the least of our problems.
