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

Re: Clarification of scope of paleoart->uses

I agree in general with that approach. But what if i'm 
doing, say, a cladistic analysis..? I would prefer to 
re-examine all relevant material in person, but for 
practical reasons that's not always possible. 

So the question is, can a dinosaur researcher (or any 
scientist) rely, at least in part, on some previously 
published analyses, including figures..?  As you say, 
relying on other's work carries the risk of propagating 
bad results. Naturally you'd like to test any previous 
hypotheses every time, so doing your own analysis (or 
reconstruction) from scratch is better. But it's also 
more time consuming. 

The answer is: we use those aspects that appear to be 
most reliable. I use your Triceratops reconstruction's 
general shape, but i count the ribs, i doublecheck the 
limb proportions, skull sutures, and so on. That's a 
derivative, i guess, but we all do it all the time. 

For my cladistic analysis, i lay out everyone else's 
matrix and then toss those characters that, somehow, 
i determine to be most unrelable. 

--- On Wed, 3/16/11, GSP1954@aol.com <GSP1954@aol.com> wrote:

> From: GSP1954@aol.com <GSP1954@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: Clarification of scope of paleoart->uses
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu, vrtpaleo@usc.edu
> Date: Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 8:36 AM
> Simply do what I do when I do a
> skeletal restoration of a dinosaur whose 
> skeleton has been previously restored. Do your own skeletal
> restoration. As I 
> explained earlier, sometimes it looks like the previous
> restoration (except 
> for limb pose), but the point is I went to the time and
> effort to get there. 
> This applies to any publication venue. 
> Which brings us back to the key point. Being derivative of
> other's work 
> does not only get into ethical issues, it is unscientific.
> Remember, science is 
> about reproducing and failing to reproduce results. Every
> time someone uses 
> other's skeletons as the basis of their own efforts they
> are merely 
> replicating past results without testing them. 
> G Paul
> In a message dated 3/15/11 8:08:08 PM, turtlecroc@yahoo.com
> writes:
> << Just for clarification, say I want to do a
> skeletal restoration 
> of, say, Triceratops (which i do and have). I can do it for
> one of two basic reasons: to use in a book/poster/video I
> intend 
> to sell for profit (directly or indirectly), or i can do it
> for 
> a professional article. 
> I assume your (Greg) objections to doing a derivative of
> one 
> of your skeletal restorations applies only if the person is
> doing it for a book/poster/video they want to sell and
> *not* 
> if they're doing it to include in a technical article..?
> (if 
> this was answered in a previous post, i haven't had time to
> read them all yet.) 
> Scientific research builds on previous research. I think
> most 
> people consider your (Greg Paul's) work to be as much
> science 
> as it is art. I think it's mostly or entirely science
> because 
> there's not a whole lot of artistic license in
> reconstructing 
> a dinosaur skeleton (i'm talking about your skeletal 
> restorations now, not your other drawings and paintings). 
> Unfortunately, you don't get any cash when someone uses (or
> derives) your work for an academic paper, although a note
> in 
> the acknowledgements never hurts.  >>
> </HTML>