[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: The subject for the day is *science*
I agree with Mickey: enough accusations and speculations, back to science.
One statement that was made earlier by a poster (sorry, lost the message)
is inaccurate: the reaction against Mr. Paul's book was not solely directed
from cladists or dinosaur-only specialists.
See, for example, A.W. Crompton and S.M. Gatesy "A cold-eyed look at a
treatise on warm-blooded dinosaurs." Scientific American January
1989:110-113. I do not think that most scientists would lump either of
these two authors as frothing hardline cladists, although that is
_certainly_ not to say that they eschew a phylogenetic context in their
research. Neither Crompton nor Gatesy work exclusively on dinosaurs,
non-avian or otherwise; Crompton especially is more of a synapsid (and bone
Mr. Paul's book is commonly cited as an authority in scientific papers as
Tom Holtz pointed out. I think people are overdramatizing the issue, and it
does not belong on the list, as with personal discussions of Bakker or
others. Leave them some privacy, this is not a celebrity listserver or
paparazzi tabloid. If I were Mr. Paul I'd be wishing people would be quiet
right now (so I'm going to be silent after this post). Critique the
science, not presumed social phenomena, or move to an unmoderated list.
--John R. Hutchinson