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

re: bat/pterowings



Tim williams wrote:

I have looked at both sides. For example, I have read Peters (2000), and
was actually quite taken with the idea that pterosaurs *might* be winged

protorosaurs/prolacertiforms. However, in light of more recent studies,
I am leaning more toward the traditional hypothesis that pterosaurs are
actually closer to dinosauromorphs. Therefore, I do believe that I have
thought about both sides of the argument - it's just that I like the
other side
better.

         To do so puts you in the realm of science. With all due
respect, to not do so puts you outside of
         science, perhaps somewhere between politics, statistics and
religion.


Hmmm... I think the "with all due respect" comment is negated by the
rest of your response. Anyways, I appreciate you taking the time to
explain
to me what "science" is all about. I wasn't aware that my skepticism of
your pet hypothesis put me outside the realm of science. There you go.
I'm
so ashamed of my non-scientific conduct that I'm thinking of returning
my Ph.D.

         Read the papers and get back to me.

Done and done.


Tim


Dear Tim,

My apologies. You gave no indication that you had read my earlier work,
nor did you give it any specific argument.

I have to ask you though, what swayed you? I may need to be swayed as
well.

David Peters
St. Louis