[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Who says dromaeosaurs can't fly?
You said:
<If hypotheses are not bound to be falsifiable and tested we
are doing religion
not science. We can forcefully argue for our own convictions
or the results of
our research but (theoretically at least) I refuse to be drawn
into a sort of
Feduccia personal thing: "Them or Us".
By what you are describing then Holtz and Headden ARE doing science.
They are
able to conceive a hypothesis and then reject it and still be
able to accept
the possibility that both could be true until hard facts tell
you wrong. Why
not?>
Please remember the type of testing that you're talking about.
As you know, evolution can be neither seen nor rerun to test
any paleontological hypothesis. Therefore, the type of testing
that you're talking about is looking at the quality of an idea
instead of implementing practical tests of the implications of
the hypothesis, as you might be able to do in another science.
If someone wanted to be hard-headed, testing an idea against
other ideas could be called philosophy. To me, because the standards
(the ideas against which paleontological hypotheses are tested)
are based on the best available observations from many fields
and are applied with rigorous honesty, paleontology
deserves to be considered a science.
But insistence about the nature of paleontology alone is not
sufficient. Like any other hypothesis, it has to be tested (and
that test itself could be called philosophical). Science was
originally called Natural Philosophy, and in some sense it still
could be.
= = = Original message = = =
"Tracy L. Ford" wrote:
>
> Welcome to the world of Paleontology.
>
> To me paleontology is more like philosophy than other sciences.
Unlike
> molecular science in paleo you don't have the chance of discounting
theories
> with cold hard physical evidence. We have to relay on theories
and beliefs,
> whether it's our own or a computers (i.e. cladistics). That's
the way it is
> in paleo.
Well yes in a sense, but unlike philosophers (or like some philosophers
willing
to do so) we should be ready to test and submit to hard facts
when they are
produced. Paleontology is after all science not pure, idle speculation.
>
>
> And if you can't prove cladisically when or if some animals
could fly, why
> to cladist argue about it so much? Sure, some say, it's possible
that some
> dinosaurs could fly or climb trees, then argue completely against
it (see
> Holtz and Haedden's posts). This is one of the things that
bothers me which
> makes me not believe what they are trying to say.
>
Now Tracy, as you well know I have always taken a hard line against
taking a
either/or line, and still manage to be convinced of certain things.
I have
always been a big advocate of the trees down theory for example
(now I'm
decanting towards a combination of run-up trees and down again...
but that is
another story... I have had really hard discussions with 'dogmatics'
from
either side).
If hypotheses are not bound to be falsifiable and tested we are
doing religion
not science. We can forcefully argue for our own convictions
or the results of
our research but (theoretically at least) I refuse to be drawn
into a sort of
Feduccia personal thing: "Them or Us".
By what you are describing then Holtz and Headden ARE doing science.
They are
able to conceive a hypothesis and then reject it and still be
able to accept
the possibility that both could be true until hard facts tell
you wrong. Why
not?
And yes, who says dromaeosaurs couldn't fly? I'd say me... depending
on the
dromaeosaur, of course.
Luis Rey
Visit my website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey
___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.