Re: John Bois

["Tony Canning" <tonyc@foe.co.uk>]

On May 20, 11:16am, Lee J. McLean wrote:

> Despite all these problems, I think the biggest problem with the
> idea is John's approach: it most certainly is not a scientific
> one. He has started off with an idea, and hung on to it no matter
> what, _making_ (or at least attempting to make) the evidence fit in
> with his scenario, no matter how ridiculous the results may be. The
> scientific approach is to start with the _evidence_, and to see what
> scenario best fits in with that evidence.  Instead, he has taken a
> somewhat similar approach to that of a creationist.

I for one don't mind John speculating, although I disagree with him,
along with Lee and everyone else who has commented.  (For what it's
worth, I think John has seriously underestimated the effectiveness of
egg-guarding as a strategy).  Although he is hanging on rather grimly
to his preferred scenario I am sure he is not in the creationist
category.

> For the record, I have the same problem with people who think that
> dinosaurs must be asssumed to have been cold-blooded, or naked,
> until proven otherwise. The scientific approach is to start without
> any assumptions, and go with the evidence. Taking this approach, one
> soon realises that the weight of evidence suggests that they were
> warm-blooded and therefore, by extension, the smaller ones should
> also have been insulated. _This_ is 'good science'.

Sorry Lee, this is not the same.  The evidence on
physiology/metabolism is equivocal, and open to interpretation.
Dozens of reputable zoologists & palaeontologists have examined the
evidence and come to a conclusion which is the opposite to your own,
and they have published their arguments in refereed journals.  They
may be right, they may be wrong, but they are not being unscientific.

Tony Canning
tonyc@foe.co.uk