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

Re: Origins (was: Re: Sharovipteryx)



In a message dated 5/26/00 1:45:24 PM EST, smithjb@sas.upenn.edu writes:

<< Whoa!  Although not often evident in the dinosaur world, this is supposed 
to be
 science.  We cannot prove hypotheses to be true, we can only falsify them
 through testing.   The scientist who puts forth a hypothesis should be the
 BIGGEST critic of it.  We are NOT supposed to be defending our hypotheses.  
We
 are supposed to be trying to blast holes in them--which is (paradoxically) 
the
 only way to "defend" them.  To get personally attached to a hypothesis that 
you
 have come up with is exactly the reverse of how one should go about it, and 
is
 exactly why so many scientific debates become so silly.  We have all been
 there, unfortunately, but it is to be avoided. >>

It is to be hoped that a scientist will have tried to blast as many holes in 
a hypothesis as he or she can >before< becoming attached to it. One of the 
several reasons that I have not published much on BCF is that I am still 
trying to blast holes into it. Once I run out of these, >then< it's time to 
let others have their turn. If you are not passionate about your hypotheses, 
then I submit that you should be doing something else that might provide more 
passion and less boredom and ennui in your life.