Bob Bakker lecture in Phoenix

[Mikiel <Mikiel@ASU.Edu>]

        Since there's been so much talk about Bakker here (and on s.b.p)
lately, I thought I'd mention to anyone in the Phoenix area who might be
interested that Bob Bakker will be speaking here this Friday.  There will
be a lecture for children entitled "Tyrannosaurus Rex: The 10,000-Pound
Roadrunner" at Phoenix Symphony Hall, and then a fund-raising dinner at
WestWorld in Scottsdale.  The childrens' lecture appears to be an
exclusive for school groups, but seats are available for $100 for adults,
$45 for children, for the fund-raiser.  Proceeds go to support the Arizona
Science Center's educational programs.  (For more info:  602-258-7250)
        While I have serious reservations about the kind of science 
Bakker does, I still think it is a real treat to hear him speak about 
dinosaurs.  He may not always be correct, but I'm not so sure that's what 
he wants.  He gives me the impression that his goal is to interest others 
in dinosaurs, and he certainly has a talent for that.
        However, I must say that I was annoyed by the write-up in the
paper.  Here's a short excerpt from an article in today's Arizona
Republic:
        "'We now see dinosaurs through the eyes of Bob Bakker,' said Ron 
Ratkevich, a paleontologist at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum in 
Tucson. 'There are very few paleontologists who can dispute his findings 
and come up with any hard evidence.'"
        I'm not exactly sure just what Ratkevich is saying in this quote,
but the fact that Bakker's credibility has to be defended apropos of any
suggestions to the contrary in this newspaper makes me wonder.  Are his
ideas viewed as so outlandish, even to the lay-public, that he has to be
set up beforehand as someone who needs defense?  Maybe I'm reading too 
much into it, but most non-paleontologist people I know have only ever 
heard of just Robert Bakker in the field of dinosaur paleontology and 
have no reason to doubt what he says about dinosaurs.
        In any case, it doesn't matter much if "few" paleontologists can
dispute his findings.  You don't have to show a theory to be false more
than once.  If Bakker can be a maverick with his ideas, why should it make
any difference if there are a "few" mavericks who disagree with him?
        Sorry about this diatribe.  It just annoys me that there's a 
blatant contradiction here between "I'm right even though no-one agrees" 
and "I'm sure I'm right because 'few' can disagree."  If it doesn't 
matter who agrees with him, why does it matter who doesn't agree with 
him?  You can't go from "I'm right because I say so" to "I'm right 
because no-one says otherwise."
        Either attitude leaves you without justification for your 
convictions; "what people say" may have nothing to do with the actual truth.

(Please excuse me for my irritability.  Since I can't think of anyone to 
blame it on offhand, I guess I'll take responsibility myself. :-)

-Mikiel