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

RE: ooo missed this one - this will stir the BAND pot

Actually I never said we should accept their opinion, just that to do
science there has to be a great freedom in expressing dissenting opinions or
else we converge on religion. I went on to state exactly why their opinions
are, in my opinion, not at all rigorous or strong arguments against the BAD
approach and therefore should be rejected. But I'm quite happy to consider
any well made argument against BAD on its merits and would change my mind if
the evidence pointed strongly to an alternative and I would hope other VPers
would do the same. I don't think it'll happen given the evidence but we have
to not only tolerate dissent but enjoy it if it is well enough done. It just
isn't well done by the usual suspects and that is a shame. But we do have to
keep doing science or else more Departments of Geology and, especially,
paleo programs will disappear as biologists, chemists and physicists will
get even more arrogant towards our science and its practitioners. 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu] On Behalf Of
Augusto Haro
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 7:58 AM
To: ralphchapman@earthlink.net
Cc: bigelowp@juno.com; dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: ooo missed this one - this will stir the BAND pot

2009/11/13 ralphchapman <ralphchapman@earthlink.net>:
> As scientists - and all part gadfly as well - we should all be happy to
> people trying to blow holes in all current majority opinions and I think
> everyone discussing this on and off feel that way. The problem with the
> usual suspects is that their arguments are almost inevitably terribly
> and, at times, very illogical.

Do not want to be boring, but accepting their opinion is illogical,
fallacious, or that the conclusions do not follow from the premises...
What is the problem with them expressing their ideas, as wrong as they
are? How many wrong people are there who make know their wrong ideas,
out of the scientific world, and we need to tolerate as long as they
are not harmful for some?

I think we should not ask for a consensus around the most supported
idea, and accept there is people who, because of certain bias or
problems with publicly admitting they are wrong, cannot accept it. The
most reasonable idea (in this case, dinosaurian ancestry of birds) is
supported by the larger amount of evidence it conforms with, not by
unanimous consensus. This greater empirical support should conform