Re: SPECULATION (WAS Re: Jurassic Park)

["Peter Von Sholly" <vonrex@gte.net>]

----------
> From: Brian Franczak <franczak@ntplx.net>
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: SPECULATION (WAS Re: Jurassic Park)
> Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 9:40 AM
> 
> Pete Von Sholly wrote:
>  
> > Yes, and further, the point I wished to make is that as far as I know,
it
> > is not an "almost" certainty that Velociraptors had fur or feathers. 
Nor
> > is it REAL simple to know things like that.  If this list fills an
> > educational role in any way, I think it's wrong to spread speculative
ideas
> > as though we really know things that we don't know.  People could
"learn" a
> > whole lot of hooey that way.
> 
> Pete is absolutely right in his comments, but there is a caveat.
> Speculation is a valid -- even necessary -- part of scientific inquiry.
> Without it, we could never move past what was tangible, the hard
> evidence of our discoveries. 

Brian speaketh most  well.  BTW, I am not against speculation (I love it),
and agree that there is such a (very important) thing as reasoned
speculation, or informed guesses.  Absolutely.  Nor did I even say that
Velociraptors didn't have feathers.  Maybe.  Speculation, informed or not,
should just be understood to be what it is.  Lest list-readers get the
wrong idea: not everyone agrees with the feathering of theropods, nor where
one draws the line in depicting them that way.  As we have seen.  And I
KNEW somebody was going to start trying to put feathers or tyrannosaurs! 
No doubt future discoveries will continue to illuminate the situation.  If
we could just go back to the Mesozoic and LOOK, darnit!  But somehow I bet
we'd all be surprised by what we'd see!  Except Greg, of course. (JOKE,
okay?)