Re: Out of date dino books

["Allan Edels" <Edels@email.msn.com>]

All:

Concerning "The Dinosauria" - KEEP IT!  It is in need of updates, but it has
some really valuable information (e.g. the definition of a dinosaur - in
detail; functional information about Cladistics; etc.)

I like the "Dinosaur Data Book" - some specifics are out-of-date, but
discussions and drawings of: digging, and preparation of fossils, land mass
changes; are very good.

    As to the other books, and any others that might be inaccurate, you
might wish to put them aside, with a notation that several specifics and
even some general theories are out-of-date, and that the books should be
read as historical documents, rather than sources of modern information.

    Allan Edels

-----Original Message-----
From: Philidor11@aol.com <Philidor11@aol.com>
To: jjackson@interalpha.co.uk <jjackson@interalpha.co.uk>
Cc: dinosaur@usc.edu <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Date: Friday, November 27, 1998 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: Out of date dino books


>In a message dated 11/27/98 7:54:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>jjackson@interalpha.co.uk writes:
>
><< I don't think it's a good idea to throw away any out of date dino books
> since nothing is lost if their info is wrong.  >>
>
>Hyperbole, I assume.
>If I read a book which I believe to be factual and the 'facts' have been
>superceded then  I have been misled, unintentionally.
>When I read another book with more accurate information I may have cause to
>think about the contradictions, but on what basis can I decide between
them?
SNIP
>
>Old books sometimes have better interpretations than newer ones (as Bakker
>enjoys pointing out in his books), but knowledge, training, and expertise
are
>necessary to discerning better from worse.  I don't believe you can argue
>'Confusion is good'  and leave it at that.
>