[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re:Norman MacLeod's opinion of Alvarez' dispassion
Responding to my expression of contempt for the Times Literary Supplement
reviewer, John Bois wrote (10/1/98; 8:16p):
(first, quoting me):
>>being equal, I would place more credence in the opinions of someone who
>>has actually seen the data in question than those of someone who has
>>read about the data. So, we don't need to be impressed by the opinion
>>a reviewer in the Times Literary Supplement. Once the reviewer got
>>beyond checking grammar, organization, and sentence construction, he
>>out of his league.
>It depends on what we are arguing about. Surely paleoecology is the
>discipline which should have the right-of-way here--I mean whether or
>a bolide was significantly implicated in the extinction of the
>In this respect, the iridium signature and its global
>Dr. Alvarez' area of expertise--may be totally irrelevant. Indeed,
>_is_ no data relating this event to dinosaur extinction. So, depending
>his or her ecological training, the Times reviewer may have more
>opinions than an astrophysisist.
Walter Alvarez is a geologist. His father, Luis, was an astrophysicist.
I would say that a bolide is indeed implicated in the extinction. It is
implicated by the apparent contemporaneity of the events (as go also
pointed out). But is it the whole answer? That's another question.
I think it is also true (but if anybody can dispute this statement,
please do so) that there are no data relating the extinction of anything
to any particular event, including matters of competitive interaction.
We just think some connections are reasonable. So, it all boils down to
what you are going to accept as a reasonable connection. You also can't
_prove_ that smoking causes cancer.
Norman R. King tel: (812) 464-1794
Department of Geosciences fax: (812) 464-1960
University of Southern Indiana
8600 University Blvd.
Evansville, IN 47712 e-mail: email@example.com