Some philosophy (too long)

[Ralph Chapman <CHAPMAN.RALPH@NMNH.SI.EDU>]

Hey Gang: Just got a note from Mark Goodwin saying hi and showing
that the April Fool's faux reference (maybe from Darren?) of our joint
paper has gone full circle:

Goodwin, M & R. Chapman. 1998. The function of the
   pachycephalosaur dome: a new happy consensus.
   Nature, 126:52-54.

Scott Sampson thought it was funny and asked for a reprint. This was a
funny note but not as far-fetched as some people might think. First of all,
Mark and I are very friendly and, despite some disagreement in this area,
would pretty much agree on a boatload of stuff dinosaurian, including
most pachy stuff. In fact, I suggested to him at SVP in New York, and will
continue to try and make it happen, that we co-write a popular book on
pachys and have two different chapters on function, one from each of
us giving our opinions and evidence, as a way to introduce people to
how the dialectic of science really should work. Others might get
involved also (Hans Sues comes to mind as does Osmolska, Galton,
etc.). I suspect the answer will be complex anyway but we're both
working towards finding it. So we may do this paper someday - but of
course I'll be the senior author because I'm bigger than Mark is,
size-wise, and allometry will win out.

This brings me to subject that should be discussed more than it is -
disagreement. Science is disagreement but too many of our colleagues
don't remember this. On this topic right now, I disagree with Mark. Big
deal. I still like him a lot, and I don't just say that because he looks like a
celebrity (ok, so it's Gabe Kaplan - Hey Mr. Kotter!) and I only look  like a
normal boring guy with big forearms. I also respect him and his work.
He's bright and supposedly hell in the field (would like to find this out in
person). Dinosaur paleontology is better with Mark in it. Hopefully, it is
with me too. On the Paleoworld episode we were seen disagreeing and
he made some strong statements about bonehead opinions. That's the
press talking with a sound bite - they like that sort of thing. I was too tired
when they filmed the episode to do something similar and it isn't my style
to do that in public anyway (I'll have a grand old time one on one). It's is
all in good spirit anyway. The point is that when done correctly,
disagreement makes everyone better. It should be done constructively
and removing a lot of the emotional crap. Enthusiasm is great, however.

Sure a bad review of a paper can hurt like hell, but constructive reviews
help the final product be a much better paper and you just have to get
over it and use them. I learned how to do reviews from Peter Dodson
who reviewed the Stegoceras paper from JP and provided great
constructive input that made the paper better. Since then, I have
reviewed all papers that way and never do it anonymously because
criticism means more when you know where it comes from. Some of my
reviews have started great relationships with other paleontologists, just
as Peter's review of my paper started a long friendship with him. You
just have to be constructive. I have a couple of trilobite workers cursing
my name because of a 5-page review of one of their papers, but they
will have a great paper when it's done. They know it too and we'll
hopefully work together sometime.

So, Mark and I disagree on some things but are friendly and enjoy talking
with each other. When I got a picture of a new pachy skull in private
hands, the first thing I did with it was give him a xerox so he knew about
it. Over the next few years there will be an update of the Dinosauria
book edited by Weishampel, et al. The pachy chapter will be done by
Osmolska, Weishampel, Dodson and myself. I suspect that I will
assemble the section on biology and behavior among other things.
Unless there is some sort of total catharsis toward a consensus
amongst all of us, it will be my responsibility to make sure that section
properly reflects all reasonable opinions on the function of the dome and
I will send a draft to Mark for comments to make sure I fairly reflect his
views. It's only fair and the only way, IMHO, to do it right.

So, we need to get the some of the emotion out of these really heated
discussions that are going on. I'll happily have a beer (OK a Diet Coke for
me) with Mark anytime. Of course, he may secretly think I'm a total idiot
and butt head, but I don't think so. I think he's better than that. Mark saw
that the conventional wisdom of head-butting was far from fully
developed and needed more rigorous development and worked towards
questioning it based on some new information. Great. I'll be spending
most of the summer working towards showing why he is wrong. At the
end, we'll know more about pachys, and that's the goal. If, at the end, the
evidence isn't there to support my current opinion on this matter, then I'll
have to move on. Hopefully, Mark feels the same way.

I have to look to Jack Horner's questioning Trex's predatory habits in the
same way. We all got lazy and assumed Trex was the baddest predator
around. This despite earlier reconstructions that suggested to me as a
kid that I could outrun it easily. Jack noted some things that might suggest
scavenging instead and this has forced us (read this as Tom) to counter.
I think Tom nailed it and will have a great paper. However, the result is
we know more about Trex and will be better based in our opinion that
Trex was indeed a great predator. Great. Jack did his job, Tom did his
and Trex turns out to be even more elegant a beast.

Which brings us to origin of birds, etc., Sinosauropteryx and the like. Too
much personal emotion right now that I hope we can get around that. I
personally think the evidence is overwhelming that birds are directly shot
out of small theropods. However, in trying to fight every piece of the
vast, developing pile of evidence (some would say pile of other stuff)
Larry Martin is doing his job and, although it might tweak some part of our
brain and tork us off at times, we should be happy to have him there. It
will make all of us do our job better and be happier when we grind the
anti-bird theory under our collective heel. Note the theory, not the
scientists. When I ask mammalogists about Larry, they almost inevitably
get a nice smirk on their face and giggle gleefully about his tendency to
argue on various issues. Scientists secretly love their gadflies.
Personally, I really like Larry and will hopefully do some work with him on
non-dinosaurian stuff we discussed at Dinofest. I disagree with him on
almost all dino-based issues but, so what. Life's too short to not enjoy
the ride.

Sorry about the length and probably uninteresting philosophy but I want
to promote discourse and constructive disagreement on the list. We all
get better from it and you can learn to realize the worth of those who
disagree with you. Besides, there's lots we agree on anyway and we
sometimes forget that.

So I have this theory that trilobites evolved from primates....

Ralph Chapman