RE: speculation/testability (very long)

[Crpntr@ix.netcom.com (Kenneth Carpenter)]

     Ok, I'm back.
     As I originally wrote: "I had for a long time come to realize that 
there is much in science that can not be proven, hence tested, but had 
kept my mouth closed for fear of criticism." And indeed that has proven 
true.  
     Lars Bergquist wrote that "Popper was NOT a scientist. He was not 
even a philosopher." If a person is what they do, then Popper was indeed 
a philosopher of science.  After all, Popper gained fame as a 
philosopher of science through 'Logic of Scientific Discovery' (1939, 
Eng. trans. 1969), revised as  Conjectures and Refutations' (1963).  
His 'Objective Knowledge' (1972) examined the problems concerning 
knowledge.  If, despite these works, Popper is not a philosopher, then 
Jack McIntosh is not a dinosaur paleontologist despite being recognized 
as the foremost authority on sauropods based on his numerous scientific, 
peer-reviewed papers on the subject.  He got his PhD in nuclear physics 
and taught that subject at Wesleyan College.  Karl Hirsch, noted fossil 
egg expert with over two dozen peer reviewed papers, used to machine 
plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons.  I accept McIntosh and Hirsch as 
professional paleontologists and my colleagues, despite what they did to 
make a living.
     We next need to clarify some language.  Bill Adam is correct in 
that hypothesis and theory are not the same, but is mistake in assuming 
that all definitions of hypothesis are "a prediction about some 
observations that you can easily verify or disprove."   Predictability 
is indeed part of the definition according to Lincoln, et al in 'A 
Dictionary of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics' (Camb. U. Press), but 
not in Peter Gray's  'Dictionary of the Biological Sciences' (Van 
Nostrand), nor in the American Geological Institute 'Glossary of 
Geology.'  I disagree with Adams' statement that "scientists have often 
used  theory' and  hypothesis' synonymously."  All three references 
recognize the following hierarchy hypothesis < theory < law, with 
hypothesis at the bottom.  Or as Peter Gray says, a hypothesis is "a 
postulate which may, bolstered by facts, turn into a theory and later a 
law."  As for theory, the AGI says it well, "a hypothesis that is 
supported by some extent by experimental or factual evidence but that 
has not been so conclusively proved as to be generally accepted as 
law." Finally, a law is "a statement of biological principle that 
appears to be without exception at the time that it is made"(Gray), but 
geologists also have their own laws (e.g., law of superposition; I agree 
with Gray who states that many biological  laws' (e.g. Cope's Law, 
Dollo's Law) are actually hypotheses).   Therefore, Adams is mistaken in 
stating that "Kenneth, Ralph and Tony have all used  hypothesis' where I 
would say  theory'".   I meant hypothesis, not theory as Adams suggests, 
and I suspect Ralph and Tony meant the same as me.
     It is about laws that I was addressing when I wrote, "here is much 
in science that can not be proven."  First an example the progression of 
hypotheses, theory and law using disease because it is a biological 
topic.  The early hypotheses about diseases was that it was caused by 
evil spirits or angry gods ("an assertion or working explanation," 
Gray), then during the "Age of Enlightenment" (17-18th century), when 
the existence of God was challenged, more down to earth causes were 
thought.  As fans of James Burke's  Connections' know, today's spark 
plug is a descendant of an electric pistol developed to locate 'bad air' 
around swamps.  This  'bad air' was thought to be the source of disease 
(read abandonment of old hypothesis, and a new hypothesis proposed).  
     A major break through occurred with the discovery of
microbes by Antoni von Leeuwenhoek in the 17th century.  A new 
hypothesis of disease based on microbes was proposed.  Rudolf Virchow 
promoted the use of the microscope in the 19th Century and his work is 
the basis for our modern understanding of disease.  At this point, 
disease as caused by germs became a theory.  Louis Pasteur conducted a 
series of complex experiments proving that many plant and animal 
diseases are due to yeasts and bacteria.  A colleague of Pasteur, Robert 
Koch, developed a set of postulates to prove that organisms are the 
cause of disease.  This, and subsequent work in immunology, has shown 
that microbes are indeed the cause of disease, which we might call the
"microbial law of diseases."
    It is the ideal of science to move beyond a hypothesis to a theory 
and ultimately to a law that was hammered into me in biology.  My 
realization is that much of science can not do that, especially 
paleobehavioral studies.  This is not to say that things can not be 
proven in paleontology.  If I find a bone 25 cm long in Morrison 
Formation, with a hemisphere on one end, a large forward projecting 
crest on the shaft, two smaller hemispheres on the other end, and a 
slight sigmoid shape to the shaft, I can prove that this is the humerus 
of an allosaurid.  Why?  Because Marsh so designated some bones shipped 
to him from Canon City as that animal (i.e. a holotype), and that 
distinctive bone is known from other, more complete skeletons.   In 
fact, I would argue that dinosaur systematics has its premise in an 
unspoken "law" that different taxa have a combination of different 
osteological features, otherwise we could never name new taxa.
    Paleobiology, however, is less certain despite the fact that 
functional morphology of theropod teeth does make carnivory for 
theropods a theory, rather than a hypothesis.  But, I am not certain we 
can ever move beyond hypothesis to theory for many ideas.  For example, 
in a monumental paper (at least to me), John Ostrom argued that track 
ways suggested that some dinosaurs were gregarious (Paleogeog,  
Paleoclim, Paleoecol. 11:287-301).  This observation has frequently been 
cited a  proof' that dinosaurs herded, so much so, that it has become 
accepted dogma.  This, pachies butting heads, etc. have become the 
"new" dogma because they are said so much that people have begun to 
believe that they are true.  As case in point is Mickey's statement " 
think it's perfectly fine to suggest that certain species moved in herds 
because of, for example, trackway evidence..."
    Do track ways really provide the level of proof as is implied? I 
would have to say no because we don't know where the animals came from, 
where they were heading, or what constraints may have existed to keep 
them heading along a certain axis.  Demonstrating that a group of 
animals was heading in the same direction purposefully together (i.e. 
within visual range of one another) is difficult to prove.  Only when 
the behavior of one animal affects others, such as the parallel 
Ambydactylus track ways Currie and Sarjeant described is the evidence 
strong.  In this instance, one animal caused a domino effect by causing 
each animal (as evidenced by the track ways) to jog to one side a little 
at the same time.  
     But with most track ways, we can not be certain that the animals 
were not separated by a half hour or more of time (i.e. outside visual 
range of one another).  The sediments are not going to dry out that much 
in that short amount of time and the impression would be a herd of 
animals traveling together. To counter that only a single species of 
tracks is present, all heading in the same direction still is not proof. 
 We can not rule out that a particular species of dinosaur was the 
dominant form in an area, or that some constraints (behavioral,
environmental) may have been operating.  For example, many animals head 
to a water source in the evening or early morning.  They do not always 
return the same direction, but often head off at a different angle 
(watch various nature shows and you'll observe this yourself).  Because 
fossil track ways only preserve a portion of the ground traversed, the 
impression would be that animals heading for a drink were heading 
together in the same direction and not returning.  The appearance could 
be misinterpreted as proof of herding.
     Finally, let's deal with the role of untestable speculation in 
dinosaur paleontology.  Tony Canning wrote "Pure speculation with no 
evidence one way or the other is not science, and can therefore have no 
place in the science of palaeontology."  I, of course disagree.  As 
George Engelman wrote, "even if the evidence and connections are weak, 
the conjecture may have some value as the source of a better
constrained hypothesis should circumstances change.  And as Ron Ornstein 
wrote, "certainly has value in stimulating thought, " which is what I 
said originally, "It is a healthy way of expanding our horizons  and 
stimulating thought."  Face it, Bakker did dinosaur paleontology a lot 
of good by generating much creative thought in others by his advocacy of 
"hot bloodedness" during the 1970's-80's.  One point of criticism has 
been the untestability of some of his statements or lack of evidence to 
support his points.  Nevertheless, it did cause others to marshal their 
counter arguments and expand their horizons.  Therefore, as I wrote 
before, "Who knows what testable hypothesis might develop from someone 
out to disprove Tony's hypothesis?" The same holds true for any other 
speculation for that matter.  
    In closing, I never said that speculation was preferable to a 
testable hypothesis as some of the comments seem to imply.  Read 
carefully what I did say on my first posting, "I felt the idea was novel 
enough that it should get a fair hearing and stimulate discussion..."  
And from my second posting, "I would arue that almost all that we infer 
about dinosaur behavior is not testable... We make inferences, draw 
conclusions from living analogies..."  A good speculation is one that is 
argued reasonably.  I have speculated on herding in hadrosaurs (Behavior 
of hadrosaurs as interpreted from footprints in the "Mesaverde" Group, 
(Campanian) of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.  Univ. Wyo. Contributions to 
Geol. 29:81-96).  I argued my case with inferences and interpretations, 
but can in no way test my hypothesis.  You are either convinced by my 
arguements or you are not.  If not, then the onus is on you to show the 
flaws and why my speculation should be ignored.

Kenneth Carpenter