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

Re: Czerkas' book- Analysis and Criticisms



Clif Green (dinonaut@emerytelcom.net) wrote:

<Mickey's post WAS a book report. There were no barbed comments on my
part.>

  Mickey's post was a report on his observations and criticisms. This list
benefits from most people who cite a paper, describe its contents, and
then add their observations. If it was not liked, ignore it, you have no
worries if you ignore the majority who do such reports to the list, such
as Darren Naish, Tom Holtz, Ben Creisler, etc.. If you do not agree with
Mickey, so so, and describe how you feel different about the data; don't
go after the person. When I wrote earlier about your first sentence about
a quintet, I was calling into question the personal flavor of the
criticism; it should not be a justifcation to delve into the baser sides
of human nature.

<Thanks for the information. I will take it to heart. I read the book, and
as far as I am concerned, they did follow your above described criteria.
Have you read it?>

  No, though it is at the top of my wish list and I should have it in
about two weeks. However, from what I have heard from both positive and
negative readers, this volume has a fairly slip-shod method in tackling
base principles such as focusing on dogmatic arguments and proving how one
is wrong, rather than providing a basis of likelihood of truth. I can just
sit there and disprove something, but it doesn't make my argument better
because the support for it is the same as in the argument just "debunked."
This is what I see in the papers so far. I may change my impression once I
have a chance to look over it. Maybe they slipped the evidence in there
somewhere.

  But it should have been made apparent the writing was inconsistent when
the authors cited taxa as being non-dinosaurian, then described them as
theropods, and describing theropods as dinosaurs, how some taxa are
non-theropods because of the long third digits, ignoring the numerous
dinosaurs with long third digits including basal theropods. This is a
serious logic problem, and I will uphold this interpretation.

<your slur o meter seems to be a little more liberal than mine. (Yes, that
was pure unfiltered sarcasm.) And again, I wasn't being antipathic in my
opening sentences.>

  I slur? I may stutter, but slur I do not. This list is for civility. I
will uphold data and the scientific method, and when data is ignored to
attack individuals, as Cliff has done (notice I tend to reply as if
speaking to the list, and not an individual) I will point out the
inappropriateness of the personalization and _ad hominem_ statements.
Notice David pointed out how Mickey's references to "crazy" were in
subject to the method and action, not the person.

<TMK, No posts were offered by Dino Frey. What we did get, was Luis, after
a Party, telling every one what Frey supposedly told him. I have spoken to
Sylvia Czerkas about this, and she can back up Dino Frey's indorsement
with paper work, minus Luis's alleged cross outs on the manuscript.>

  Have you talked to Luis? Have you at any point assessed the veracity of
either individual? I have known Luis for a few years, not as long as most,
but I can vouch for his honesty. If Luis says Dino says the stuff was
unpublishable, why would you disbleieve him? Tracy posted a reply from
Sylvia that says she got an endorsement from Dino, but to my understand he
has a markedly high starndard of publishing, and deals more in data than
publicity, and I find this inconsistent.

<I was also informed that the Czerkases and Tom Holtz disagree on about 
90 percent of everything. If they said the sky was blue he would probably
say it was green, and vice versa.  So what. I never said critique and
debate were of the devil.>

  In fact, no. Seems that the Other One loves to debate, and engaged Moses
in holy debate quite readily, as well as Job. I love debate, though I have
not taken courses in it as some I know of.

  Cheers,

=====
Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com