[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
As far a science IN GENERAL, allow me to assure you there is ample
speculation in physics too, especially theoretical physics. :-)
Increasing the amount of "hard" data one accumulates does not necessarily
decrease speculation. It usually reduces groundless or just plain mistaken
speculation, but it CAN imply more questions. Thus spinning off improved
(or at least MORE specific & refined) speculation. To me, Science is a
method, a process, a discipline. It is advisable to limit speculation to
established facts, but (in a sense) speculation is a way of asking
questions. That's where peer review comes in. Many "anti-science" people
think we claim to have all the answers. No serious, sober scientist claims
this. What we have (IMHO) is a methodology for finding, defining,
examining, & testing data to establish facts FROM data. As an old professor
of mine warned me aeons ago: "Don't invest too much emotional energy on any
theory. At least, not so much that it clouds your judgment!
Work from data."
From: Larry Febo [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 1998 7:28 AM
I`ve just read Dr. Holtz article "What is Science, Anyway?"and
to be somewhat enlightening. It leaves me wondering though...
should one be allowed to speculate? It seems noble to try and base
scientific discussion on "hard evidence" alone. This makes for a
foundation in such fields as chemistry and physics, where tangible
is abundant, and to an extent "universal", but when dealing with
paleontological data, one must admit that a vast majority of the
is just plain missing! This especially holds true, (unfortunately),
smaller specimens that would make up arboreal species, and extremely
(one would think) would be the forms in transition, the veritable
links" as it were. I don`t see why speculation into what these forms
have been is in any way "unhealthy"or why it couldn`t be considered
scientific, if established scientific principles were used as
factors in the inquiry. I think many inventions, at the forefront of
"unknown" have come about through this form of healthy scientific
On the other hand, I tend to become frightened at the thought
establishing patterns of phylogenies based strictly on the fossils
(I mean in cases where they are obviously few in number). As how can
claim to know the truth when we KNOW that most of the evidence is
and that a "universal" sampling is just not present?
So, I think its ok to speculate, and actually call it theory
speculation), rather than established LAW. I see most anything
science to be just a "model", in constant need of refinement, and
nothing, as we know it should ever become fixed dogma.
Which leads me to the point that...I have a theory that I`m
refine,whose major premise is that endothermy in vertebrates, due to
being a highly complex metabolic process,evolved only once in the
line.This would lead me to conclude that the diapsid line most
evolved out of the synapsid , somewhere in the early- mid
where they took to an arboreal habitat to develop their unique
characteristics and send periodic offshoots to the ground to become
cursorial forms, i.e., Thecodonts, right on up to Dinosaurs, and
into Aves in their primary arboreal habitat .
Now the fossil record, (as currently interpreted), "shows" that
Diapsids evolved separately from an Anapsid condition, late in the
Pennsylvanian, but this is based on only a small handful of fossil
specimens. What I am argueing is that, in a case such as this, an
based upon physiological principles should take precedence over
paleontological evidence. What do you think?