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

RE: List User-related request



Hypothesis are based on our evidence at the moment.  That evidence gets refined 
all the time.  What we knew for a fact
100 years ago is now known to be totally false (in some cases).  The problem 
with some science is that it is given as
"The Truth".  Kids grow up believing that they know the truth about aspects of 
science and then pitch rather large fits
when their kids in my grade six class tell them that their information is 
outdated (space is in grade 6 science and if I
have to here the Pluto thing one more time - like I demoted it personally).  
The more people research, the more clear
the picture becomes, but it is healthy for science to try to prove itself wrong.

Follow dinosaur discoveries over time to see what I mean about information 
being refined.  Follow Apatosaurus through
many modifications (senior synonym of Brontosaurus, different head, more neck 
vertebrae, more tail vertebrae, etc).  We
are not done yet.  Each new find throws the various species into question.  
Some evidence separates them.  Some evidence
combines them.  What we really need is for some lucky-arse field person to dig 
up the bone bed with 20 complete and
uncrushed Apatosaurus specimens so we can do some comparisons.  It would help 
if some were juveniles.  Can someone get
on that please?

Darryl Jones  <dinoguy@sympatico.ca>

For information on tyrannosaurids and
cool activities and information for kids,
visit my web page at:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/dinoguy/  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Conway [mailto:john.a.conway@gmail.com] 
> 
> Now if we take "falsifiable hypotheses" to mean 
> falsificationism (maybe an unjustified leap), then the 
> sentence implies that you can simply chuck out the notion of 
> truth and replace it with falsificationism. 
> Which I think we'd both agree is problematic.
> 
> --
> 
> John Conway - palaeontographer
> http://jconway.co.uk
>