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

Re: Czerkas' book- Analysis and Criticisms

Indeed. I feel its just as valid as pointing out errors in ABSRD
methodologies, or addressing issues (such as has been done ad nauseum)
concerning taxonomy, and so forth and so on. If I were to publish an article
stating that all dinosaurs are actually highly derived cephalopods, would my
conclusions, and the reasons I reached them, be (harshly) criticized? What
is the difference (minus the absurdity of my "hypothesis") here?

Student of Geology
400 E. McConnell Drive #11
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, Az. 86001
AIM: TarryAGoat

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Conway" <john_conway@mac.com>
To: <dino.hunter@cox.net>; <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: Czerkas' book- Analysis and Criticisms

> On Tuesday, October 1, 2002, at 12:20  PM, Tracy L. Ford wrote:
> > You attacked their scientific methodology, which IS an attack against
> > the
> > authors themselves whether or not if you believe it, and get away with
> > those
> > comments.
> I don't want to take sides on this , but an attack on scientific
> methodology is legitimate, and not personal. The recent attacks on
> cladism on this list were attacks on methodology - nothing wrong with
> that. Pointing out that someone may be using flawed basic methodology
> is not a personal attack.
> It seems to be the feeling of some on this list that we should not
> examine - or discuss - basic methodology. Why?
> John Conway, Palaeoartist
> "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am
> large, I contain multitudes." - Walt Whitman
> Systematic ramblings: http://homepage.mac.com/john_conway/
> Palaeoart: http://homepage.mac.com/john_conway/_palaeoart.html