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

RE: well-lit dimosaurs

Well, I never said I LIKED it as an artistic line...

Be that as it may, it was very clearly (to this reader) a throw away line.
Yes, it is misleading.  In gernal, however, the article was leaps, bounds,
and hurdles better than a lot of crap that gets published as "science
journalism".  It tried to deal with a subject that didn't have the words
"first", "biggest", "fiercest", "contraversial", or "most photogenic" in it:
for that, I give the BBC extreme high praise!

Sure it stinks, but only a little stink; not the horrendous stench you might
find in some other alleged "science" reports.

                Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
                Vertebrate Paleontologist
Department of Geology           Director, Earth, Life & Time Program
University of Maryland          College Park Scholars
                College Park, MD  20742
Phone:  301-405-4084    Email:  tholtz@geol.umd.edu
Fax (Geol):  301-314-9661       Fax (CPS-ELT): 301-405-0796

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Stanford [mailto:dinotracker@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 3:52 PM
> To: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.; Dinosaur Mailing List
> Subject: Re: well-lit dimosaurs
> Thomas R., Jr, said (referring to my earlier posting):
> "I think this is deducing way too far!  The T. rex reference is in a
> relatively artistic sentence ("...better display of Northern & Southern
> Lights...") rather than in any direct quotation by the researchers. I
> strongly suspect that the name "T. rex" was used because it is the best
> known Cretaceous dinosaur: unfortunately, it is a LATEST Cretaceous
> dinosaur."
>     I was not deducing anything.  I said, "deductively", referring to what
> it might lead someone to deduce (and surely you would agree it might).
>     Direct quotation of the authors or not, Tom, to be specific, the
> beginning of the referenced sentence reads, "Researchers say that besides
> possibly giving T. rex a better display of the Northern and Southern
> lights..."
>     One is justified, therefore, to ask, "WHAT researchers say
> that (and where)?"  I feel reasonably certain that the authors of the
> article in Science
> would have said nothing of the sort. Isn't the BBC writer putting some
> inaccurate words
> into researchers' mouths?
>     Would you, Tom, like him handling something about a
> scientific writing of yours in a way that says something you
> didn't intend,
> however well-intended or "artistic" the mis-implication?
> Actually, I don't
> see anything artistic about it, whatsoever. It seems to me to be
> just plain
> indiscretion shoveled out to the public by an author who seems to
> regard his
> public as rather ignorant.   And not only does the BBC article
> have either T. rex or the stronger magnetic field in the wrong
> time slot (as
> you acknowledge), to get real picky about it, I would question whether a
> northern hemisphere dinosaur like T. rex would be able to have a
> display of
> the aurora australis. :)
>     Tom, this is the first time I've noticed seeming acceptance (or
> semi-acceptance) by you of rather misleading 'artistic license' in the
> popular
> reporting of scientific papers.  Huuummm...are you, like fine wine,
> mellowing with age, or...?
>     Whatever, thanks for the additional information your latest posting on
> this subject has provided.
>     Ray Stanford
> "You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles." --
> Sherlock Holmes, The Boscombe Valley Mystery