[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Fact, opinion or just BUNK?
>I do not think it takes that much more
>effort to say "Deinonychus was, in my opinion, secondarily flightless" than
>it does to say "Deinonychus was secondarily flightless" - and I think that
>you certainly know enough to tell when such a qualifier is warranted. This
>doesn't mean that your opinion is bunk - it may well be right - but in that
>it does not represent the orthodox or most widely accepted view I think it
>needs the qualifier.
I disagree. The whole idea behind any science is to take the established=
ideas, assume that they are probably wrong, and do research to try to come=
up with a better model. So what if someone comes up with something that=
goes against the conventional ideas, this is irrelevant (it suggests that=
anything unconventional is wrong).
Besides, in this forum, the conventional views will come out anyway.