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

Re: Theagarten Lingham-Soliar's The Vertebrate Integument Volume 2



Not to read too much into the format, but the progression of the
conversation on "integument" seems to run from "birds as dinosaurs,"
arguments about cladistics, discussing the journals in which these
arguments are presented, discussion of fraud in said journals, and
then Nat Geo. Far be it from me to imply that there's a thread, but
it's been raised in TLS's papers in this way to all be related:

Birds as dinosaurs is a dogma that has been peddled in part by many
mainstream journals, which apparently commit error in perpetrating
this idea and not that of "lesser" ones (such as TLSs) nor for taking
them seriously, forcing them to publish in Springer-led journals
almost exclusively, or ornithological ones sympathetic to the
"debate." They plug Nat Geo as a glamour mag responsible for starting
everything, as if it were their fault at the outset (citing the
"Archaeoraptor" problem) that the "birds as dinosaurs" camp have any
footing.

Am I too far off?

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Ben Creisler <bcreisler@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ben Creisler
> bcreisler@gmail.com
>
>
>
> The first volume of Theagarten Lingham-Soliar's The Vertebrate
> Integument  came out last year, but did not directly address the
> dinosaur feather issue according to some reports. (I don't have the
> entire contents.) Apparently the second volume does.
>
>
> http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-662-46005-4
>
>
> I only have access to the two-page previews and the free pdf of the
> table of contents, but such subdivision titles as these suggest the
> tone:
>
>
> 7.1 Freedom of Expression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
> 7.2 Peer Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
> 7.3 The Birds are Dinosaurs Debate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . 300
> 7.3.1 How Did We Sink so Low? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . 301
> 7.3.2 Science and the Falsifiability Criterion . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . 305
> 7.3.3 Birds are Dinosaurs and Cladistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . 310
> 7.3.4 “Prime Time” Journals: Does the Bite Match the Bark?. . . . 314
> 7.4 COPE’s Proposals on Fraud in Science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . 315
> 7.4.1 Should the Status of the Institution or Individual Make
> Fraud More Palatable?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . 315
> 7.5 National Geographic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322



-- 
Jaime A. Headden
The Bite Stuff: http://qilong.wordpress.com/


"Innocent, unbiased observation is a myth" - P. B. Medawar (1969)