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

Re: Origins (was: Re: Sharovipteryx)

Belated response:

<Would definitely not take this piece of advice. One
MUST become attached to one's own hypotheses,
otherwise one will not feel much urge to defend them.>

  Urge to defend a rigorous test, yes, but not to an
hyposthesis itself. It's not an entity, it deserves no
compassion, and levelling such at it is a useless
endeavor. What would have happened had Cope _not_
removed the skull from the tail of his plesiosaur? Had
he grown attached to the idea of the skull's placement
instead of admitting Marsh was right, it is largely
possible he would have been mocked outright. Osborn
didn't really stick to his Central Asian "hunch" of
human origins after Andrews reported unusual reptilian
fossils. Better for us that some hypostheses were
challenged -- by the researched themselves who
formulated them, such as Mantell's postdeluvian
explanation for the spelaeic fossils of Essex and
Wight. He was able to be wrong, formulated his
hyposthesis to permit a test, that this was an
explanation for this, and not "I believe, in all my
heart, that..."

  As for Ralph's suggestion on the hyposthesis book, I
really feel I can test the hyposthesis that
oviraptorids ate eggs, and do it well, because ... I
don't "believe" they did it, I don't "know" they did
it, it was an idea, I can ask a testable question, and
it is disprovable (Barsbold, 1977, suggested some
alternatives), but also the alternative is
disprovable, as I can show.

Jaime "James" A. Headden

"Come the path that leads us to our fortune."

Qilong---is temporarily out of service.
Check back soon.

Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.