[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Die Me, Dichotomy (was For you T. Rex [...])
David et al:
The problem is that Jack (Horner) puts it in an "Obligate Scavenger or
Pure Predator" light, not as an "obligate scavenger or not" view.
There are therefore 3 hypotheses in this "debate":
_T. rex_ is
1) A Pure Predator
2) An Obligate Scavenger
3) A bit of both (in varying degrees).
Jack wants to limit the debate to #1 or #2. Most people seem to think
that #3 is most likely.
The problem with the title of this thread is "Dichotomy" - it should
really be "Trichotomy" [this doesn't even show up in my spell-checker
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf
Of David Marjanovic
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Die Me, Dichotomy (was For you T. Rex [...])
"We wanna see blood! We wanna see blood!"
-- Old school wisdom, spoken in choir when kids are about to begin to
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tommy Bradley" <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 6:16 PM
> [...] "Can't we all just get along?"
Er, uh, _we_ can get along, but our hypotheses can't. When there are n
contradicting opinions in science, _at least (n - 1) are wrong_. And _at
most_ one is completely correct. Therefore there's an entire book
(in German) "The truth does not lie in the middle". We must "fight it
until at least (n - 1) of the alternatives are disproved.
In this particular debate, "obligate scavenger or not", you are on one
("not") when you "keep an open mind", because even cheetahs scavenge
regularly, if not often (thanks, Darren :-) ). "Not" already is the
ground", there is no "middle ground" between this and "obligate
- From: "David Marjanovic" <firstname.lastname@example.org>