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

Re: Say this slowly: theropoda is paraphylitic, theropoda is paraphlyitic.....

ELurio@aol.com wrote:
> this is getting old. When further reserch confirms my beliefs, then we'll
> talk...

I was trying to stay out of this nasty business, but this last comment
clinched it for me. Science is NEVER about confirming personal beliefs.
I have offered several possible theories on various subjects on this
list, and often I've directly contradicted myself within the space of a
few weeks or months. Why? Because I'm not locked into any one specific
"pet" theory which I'll defend to the last. I'm open to many different
view points depending on what the weight of available evidence dictates.

Science is about (or at least it should be) observing the evidence and
offering explanations that fit what is observed. Then you can begin to
formulate a theory, which has to be testable. If you test it with
further analysis, and you find more evidence against it than for it,
then you should seriously begin thinking about abandoning the theory.
Science is NEVER about trying to shoe-horn the available evidence into
personal beliefs. That's what religion is for.  :)

History is full of examples of people who have been laughed at by the
rest of the scientific community, where everyone has said a person can't
be right because of the mass of available "evidence". Sometimes the
majority are wrong, but only when the individual in question researches
their theory thoroughly and comes up with new and even more overwealming
evidence. However these instances seem to be in the minority.

Remember Occam's Razor: If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
it's probably not some sort of highly derived lizard-creature. It COULD
be, but personally the "it's a duck" theory is more likely.

        Dann Pigdon
        GIS Archaeologist
        Melbourne, Australia

        Australian Dinosaurs: