Yeah, but do they have friggin' laser beams attached to their friggin' heads?
I would agree with that however it appears that snakes do not have any of the structures that are associated at all with eye-lids.
What are you therefore referring to as a "fused eyelid" on a snake? They have a scale, which is transparent, I could find no sites that mention that a snakes eye covering is a fused eyelid structure.
Please supply the evidence for your claim that snakes have a "fused eyelid".
Rolfe
Adult human female
What I find questionable is the implication that because the original report includes the phrase "its beady eyes opened", the whole story is therefore suspect. (Apologies if that wasn't the intended implication of the OP.)
It doesn't seem to me to be at all unlikely that someone in that situation would imagine that the snake's eyes had opened, and "remember" this, when in fact the animal may have turned its head to face her or something like that. It hardly invalidates the entire tale.
What does cast huge doubt on the whole story is, as someone alredy pointed out, the phrase "according to the Sun".
Ooh, it couldn't be that Claus started this apparently pointless thread simply to gain the opportunity of making a statement about snakes (Steve Grenard's known hobby area of expertise) which was essentially wrong, but which was borderline arguable on the basis of special semantic pleading, just so as to provoke a fight with Steve? No, surely not, that's just CT paranoia....
But I did wonder why on earth the thread on this, until Claus referenced it so show that Steve was willing to engage him on a subject (just not on subjects dead and buried for two years, it seems), and some pennies suddenly started to go "clang".
No, paranoid delusions, I realise this....
Rolfe.
It doesn't seem to me to be at all unlikely that someone in that situation would imagine that the snake's eyes had opened, and "remember" this, when in fact the animal may have turned its head to face her or something like that. It hardly invalidates the entire tale.
What does cast huge doubt on the whole story is, as someone alredy pointed out, the phrase "according to the Sun".
Ooh, it couldn't be that Claus started this apparently pointless thread simply to gain the opportunity of making a statement about snakes (Steve Grenard's known hobby area of expertise) which was essentially wrong, but which was borderline arguable on the basis of special semantic pleading, just so as to provoke a fight with Steve? No, surely not, that's just CT paranoia....
But I did wonder why on earth the thread on this, until Claus referenced it so show that Steve was willing to engage him on a subject (just not on subjects dead and buried for two years, it seems), and some pennies suddenly started to go "clang".
No, paranoid delusions, I realise this....
Rolfe.
That is irrelevant to whether it is an eyelid or not. I have bones, but they move because of my muscles. That doesn't mean the bones aren't bones.
I also refer to my post #34. It's not the movement that makes it an eyelid. The eyelid is simply what covers the eye for protection.
It does raise a question about the credibility of the person telling the story.
So, the Sun is generally to be disbelieved? Why is that?
Yes, it is. I had no intention of engaging Steve with this thread. If I want to engage someone, I do it head on.
Anyway, Steve has plenty of threads waiting for him. Your imagination is running wild. No conspiracy here.
Because it has no reputation as being a "newspaper" that has high journalistic standards.
Where are these standards defined?
Does not address my point i.e:
"... do not have any of the structures that are associated at all with eye-lids.."
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (SE) an eyelid is defined as:
" One of the lids or covers of the eye, distinguished as upper and lower; one of the movable folds of skin with which an animal covers or uncovers the eye at pleasure."
I see no structure in snakes that this can be applied to.
It looks as if the person who wrote the WikiPedia article did not know the actual definition of the word "eyelid".
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Foot long? Meh! We have worms bigger than that.
Rolfe
Adult human female
OK, someone says they were shocked by the discovery of a snake in a bag of vegetables. As part of their recounting of the tale, they include the phrase "its beady eyes opened". We know that snakes cannot close their eyes, therefore nobody could have seen a snake open its eyes.
So, is this strong evidence to suggest that the entire story is invented, that there was no snake, and possibly no bag of vegetables either? So compelling that it's worthy of a JREF thread all of its own?
Or is it not quite likely that the opening of the eyes bit was simply post hoc embellishment from someone who was extremely startled at the time of the event, and just imagined or assumed that she'd seen that? Or even that the Sun journalist (I use the term loosely) simply added that bit of embellishment off his own bat?
Why does this matter? Why are we even bothering?
Rolfe.
It doesn't cover and protect the eye? Isn't that the function of an eyelid?
How much "embellishment" should we accept, then? This is a very good example of a story that gets publicity, but not all the pieces fit together. Something is amiss here.
Compare to the stories we hear from psychics - or people who go to psychics. Some of what they tell us is true, but not all of it. Something is also amiss. But why should we trust any of it, then?
It's akin to believers in Uri Geller dismissing evidence of him cheating: Oh, he isn't caught all the time, so there's no reason to doubt him in such cases. But this isn't so: It all has to fit. If there is a weak link in the chain, *clonk*.
It's an example of the importance of being observant. A very good one, too.
I think it's a good example of why we shouldn't rely on news articles to support assertions (e.g the most recent 'eSkeptic' gave detailed breakdown and actual citation of the studies into methodological problems with prayer and healing rather than depending upon newspaper second-hand accounts of said studies). I might use this in English class...
What, in these, makes Sun untrustworthy?
That two things have the same function does not mean that they are the same.
No one has said that snakes do not have a protective covering over their eyes however given the accepted definition for "eyelid" snakes do not have eyelids.
I stated *why* the Sun is not regarded in the UK as being a good source of information e.g. it does not have a good reputation for journalism, you asked who sets those standards and I have shown you one of the bodies that sets those standards (and that the Sun agrees to follow).
Beyond that if it is a matter of interest you I suggest you do some research on the matter.
Dunno. Reckon these boo... uh, regular features might tell me why this particular publication isn't that high on the Pulitzer Prize winning stakes.
And yeah, I know - you get it for the articles.... uh huh... just like Playboy... uh huh... probably has great Sci fi like them too... uh huh...
LostAngeles
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Messages
- 10,109
No. Unless, "snake," is Danish for, "shark."
That's merely semantics. Either an eyelid covers and protects the eye, or it doesn't.
You were the one claiming that The Sun was untrustworthy due to these rules. It is up to you to demonstrate why.
You are not capable of learning Danish. You lack the necessary triple-tongue.