[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: No substitute for seeing a specimen
> Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 10:47:07 -0500
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: No substitute for seeing a specimen
> Unfortunately you're all forgetting the one critical feature in this
> argument: human nature. It's human nature to trace/identify the easy stuff,
> then maybe the not so easy stuff, and forget about the difficult stuff,
so then why trace?
> Why are tracings important? They are the only way to communicate to others
> what you see and what you can identify.
I thought paleontologists used drawings for that.
> They are simplifications of reality that represent your interpretation of the
> reality. Which cracks are sutures? And which cracks are just cracks? And what
> bone part just barely peeks out from under the pile that can be tied to
> another bone part elsewhere in the pile?
> If there really is "no substitute" for seeing a fossil,
Wait...let me see if I understand this: you're saying that scientists (who
have studied the fossils firsthand) are wrong because they are biased by their
interpredation of the reality.
...and you want them to do tracings - so they can further represent their
interpretation of the reality??
> Certainly photographs can contain illusionary data. That's why a good
> interpretation comes with a cladistic analysis. Autapomorphies often reveal
> themselves to be mistaken interpretations, that, with second sight, can be
> As scientists don't you test everything? Even your most cherished beliefs.
I believe I can not walk up my wall and onto my ceiling. you're welcome to
prove me wrong, though.
> So, bottom line, if I'm so wrong, then anyone should be able to slam-dunk my
> interpretation with theirs. Just do it.
they already did. (the citation is likely sitting in your Inbox by now)
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.