[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

RE: Testing for arboreality (was RE: On science (was Re: a bunch of other stuff))



>>Sankar has provided a good theoretical framework.  However, he has not
done
the caliper measurements which are really needed to obtain the data to see
if this framework has some bearing on reality.<<
My point is that this 'theory' is not even excepted as a possibility by 90%
(maybe an exeratiion) of scientist (not just paleontologist). It is scoffed
at (I know because I've heard them scoffing when he gives his talk). It is a
BIAS, an over whelming bias not to except this possibility.

> >>The heart of the problem is that the questions about theropod
> arboreality
> (or scansoriality) have been extremely poorly thought out.  First
> of all, we
> have to recognize that there are different methods of getting into and
> clambering around trees.  Off the top of my head, I can think of
> some of the
> following:<<
> Why again. Just to have 90% of scientist laugh them off. Its been talked
> about a lot, on this list even, and its just poop pooped off. We can talk
> till were blue in the face and still get shot down. Lets do a test, later
> this year, probably next year, someone on this list will write an article
> about this topic, and I probably will write on this latter this year also,
> lets see what will be said about those papers. I can gaurintee it won't be
> widely accepted. Why. It goes against what is 'widely' accepted. It goes
> against the grain, so to speak. We need to STOP thinking what
> birds are, and
> think of what they were.

Tracy, how can actually obtaining measurements and plotting the data and
seeing if they match our preconceptions be bad?

What will it take? It will take a pain staking about of work. Plotting,
measuring, etc. Why? Because of the Bias that I previously mentioned. Just
look at what Protoavis brings about. Oh, it's a composite, or he's not
interpreting the material right, no he doesn't know what he's talking about,
etc. These are comments that I've heard when I've talked to people. Again it
is a theory that does not fit with people so they will fight against it.
Protoavis doesn't look like a bird, to that I say DAUHHH!!!!, of course not.
It is in the beginnings of becoming what is considered a bird. Again... We
have to STOP looking at birds as they are today and look at what birds
WERE!!!

>>Not too long ago a lot of people (including Ostrom) did not accept a
monophyletic Dinosauria; now just about everyone does.  Why?  Good analyses.

Not too long ago a lot of people did not consider tyrannosaurids as possible
cursors.  Now many (not all, but many) do.  Why?  Good analyses.<<



Speculation is great, but put your data where your mouth is.  Maybe it will
be consistent with your ideas: great if it is.  Maybe it won't be
consistent: if not, perhaps we should rethink our preconceptions.<<

RIGHT!!! But it either won't happen or when a well accepted paleontologist
comes up with it it'll be accepted easier. Imagine this, George and I have
been saying birds began in the late Triassic, but if for some reason
Feduccia or Martin, suddenly say it, it will be accepted even though others
have been saying it years, or decades earlier.
>Regardless, doing science can't hurt.

I can name a few who have dropped out of science because of it. I've talked
to a few paleontologist, you included, who have been brief with me when I
suggest a 'different' tack on a theory. So I know of what I speak. But I
must add that my ideas have been accepted (or given thought to) by more
paleontologist than not.
Tracy