|
Post by tomhet on Aug 2, 2008 5:16:35 GMT
I dunno, it may be a logical fallacy but I don't see what kind. Actually, I think it might just be logical. I think I may have proven it objectively! (j/k... sort of). Stop insulting people. This is my last warning. If you think you are superior to everybody who hasn't studied something related to science, fine, but keep it to yourself from now on.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 2, 2008 8:24:09 GMT
"Does the crocodile come at your beck and call?"
Well, now that its been brought up, most of the time, yes, she does, but shes usually looking for food. :>
"If you think you are superior to everybody who hasn't studied something related to science, fine, but keep it to yourself from now on."
As a part who has avoided this convo, (except for trying to say funny things to lighten the mood a bit here and there) I don't think that thag is trying to rag on everyone (I could be wrong ?) - to me it comes of that he is explaining the facts that he knows to the people who don't know them. Thats part of learning. I know I appreciate hearing from folks who know more about a subject then I do. I am also of the mind that the opinion that birds are not dinosaurs is simply that, an opinion, based on something that is not facts and science. Facts and science say quite differently.
If thag, or I or anyone else makes a statement based on scientific facts, its just that, a statement, not an opinion. I think (or, at least in my opinion, it seems to me) that thag is getting frustrated that people are treating the information he is providing as facts as opinions, and I think others are upset because of a communication error in the two - eg - what is a fact vs what is an opinion.
I am also of the opinion that on a dinosaur board, where people read about, and study dinosaurs, (and also collect figures/fossils and the like) that one can, or at least should expect a fair number of those folks who engage in said activity to be researched to the facts about dinosaurs, to varying degrees, and to wish to discuss dinosaurs and paleontology.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 2, 2008 10:48:42 GMT
Wow,Thagomizer,there's no need to insult me or Piltdown only because we expressed our opinions about the matter... This is what I mean about all opinions not being equal. His opinion is based on ignorance. If my opinion is that the Earth is flat, because in my experience, it seems flat--is that opinion worth the same as somebody who has sailed around the globe? No, because one of us has more knowledge of the subject. What's wrong with elitism? If you know more about a subject than I do, I should value your opinion over mine (that doesn't mean I shouldn't try to gather evidence by my self to back up my case of course, maybe with more knowledge I can show you where you're wrong in specifics). This is one of my favorite segments form the Daily Show in a few years: www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166074&title=headlines-gaffe-inThe part about elitism starts at 7:10 into it. Articulates my own opinion pretty well. "If you don't believe you're better than us, then what the **** are you doing?" If all our opinions were worth the same, what's the point of having people go to uni and study science? Do you really think your opinion is or should be equal to the opinion of somebody who's spent years of their life studying and gaining experience in a subject? I know there's the whole touchy-feely idea out there that everybody's opinion is valid, but that's total BS. My opinion on architecture is worth jack, and Frank Lloyd Wright's opinion on paleontology is worth jack. I stand by my original statement. "It doesn’t matter who you are or what you do, if you can back up an argument with evidence it is just as valid as the next persons. The difference is that some people are in a better position to acquire the evidence." "my opinion is that the Earth is flat, because in my experience, it seems flat--is that opinion worth the same as somebody who has sailed around the globe?"Yes! It is a logical argument too. It doesn't mean it is right, but it is indeed 'worth the same' as anybody else's opinion. Sounds like you are getting confused between: 'everyone's opinion is equal' (which is true) and 'and everyone's opinion has equal relationship to truth" (which is false). It may sound like a subtle difference, but its not. Outside of science, say in art, all opinions are equal too, because this is subjective, but I'm just concentrating on objective, evidence based opinions for now.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 2, 2008 11:04:27 GMT
As I warned, It is an argument from authority, a common logical fallacy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authorityThe most important statement about the argument from authority in the above article: "It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source."
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 2, 2008 11:58:18 GMT
I dunno, it may be a logical fallacy but I don't see what kind. Actually, I think it might just be logical. I think I may have proven it objectively! (j/k... sort of). Stop insulting people. This is my last warning. If you think you are superior to everybody who hasn't studied something related to science, fine, but keep it to yourself from now on. I second this. Enough with the insults - it's not necessary.
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Aug 2, 2008 18:21:07 GMT
to me it comes of that he is explaining the facts that he knows to the people who don't know them. Really? Does that involve name-calling too? If thag, or I or anyone else makes a statement based on scientific facts, its just that, a statement, not an opinion. I think (or, at least in my opinion, it seems to me) that thag is getting frustrated that people are treating the information he is providing as facts as opinions, Maybe I'm just too ignorant to understand matters, but nobody is treating the info he provides as opinions. We're just saying that the media has blown this business out of proportion.
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Aug 3, 2008 2:55:37 GMT
"Really? Does that involve name-calling too?"
Yeah, I have no idea. I wasn't really trying to defend him, or anyone really, just pointing out what would have clarified things for ME..
"We're just saying that the media has blown this business out of proportion."
I tend to agree.Generally that's what the media does to everything it gets its tendrils on....and I mean everything. And facts tend to get slurred and misrepresented. I can't tell you how much I cringe each time I hear someone talking about "poisonous snakes" - there aren't any poisonous snakes, as we commonly tell people in jest (to clarify the missused terms) you can eat all of them quite safely.
Though, the feathers on dinosaurs issue is not all "media hype", (a fuzzy sauropod would be a major jaunt of the imaginaton indeed)
I know I personally find the "down with feathered dinosaurs" thread a tad tedious. I understand the preference for un feathered dinos just fine, and much of my collection, and a fair bit of my art is "retro", but to stretch that personal preferance to a "the Chinese R making it all up, and the scientists are all idjiiots"....well, it does come off, at least to me as sad and xenophobic.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 3, 2008 22:24:08 GMT
Maybe I'm just too ignorant to understand matters, but nobody is treating the info he provides as opinions. We're just saying that the media has blown this business out of proportion. That's now what Piltodown was saying. No more fuzzy tyrant, No more Chickensaurus Rex... ;D Thank goodness indeed ;D Now if only somebody could write a study that the alleged "fuzz" found on Dilong was merely fraying collagen fibers from the dilong's skin, then there would be absolutely no proof [sic] tyrannosaurs had feathers This post implies that: 1) Piltdown and sid think that this new discovery has something to do with T. rex feathers or lack of feathers. This is obviously not the case. So either they are blowing it out of proportion, or the media is and they are buying into it. (I'm not sure if any news articles suggested that, but it may be an explanation for why they think such a thing). 2) The second bit, about Dilong, implies that nobody has studied the fibers yet (ignorance of the science involved) and that it's a foregone conclusion that Dilong is a rex ancestor (ignorance again, one or two studies found it to be more advanced than tyrannosaurs). Hmm, perhaps they should also carbon date the feathers of microraptor and the fuzz on beipaiosaurus. I'm sure we will find they were fossilized at around, say, 1995 +- 5 years ;D This statement shows an unparalleled level of either ignorance or misinformation about the nature of feather impressions, presenting them as if they were in some way analogous to the T. rex 'soft tissue'. They should definitely date the Lioaning soft tissue. Same here. Soft tissue has never been found in Liaoning. Just carbonized impressions of soft tissue. No, but apparently I know more about what these people think about birds than you do. Do you know that they don't believe maniraptorans are dinosaurs, but rather flightless birds more advanced than Archaeopteryx? Even if you side with them, most small "dinosaurs" have feathers and aren't even dinosaurs at all.
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Aug 3, 2008 23:33:03 GMT
"Just carbonized impressions of soft tissue." They should date the carbonized impressions then .
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Aug 3, 2008 23:45:48 GMT
"Just carbonized impressions of soft tissue." They should date the carbonized impressions then . They'd be the same age as the rest of the rock. Which they have dates in numerous studies. The ones that come to mind off the top of my head involve the Daohugou beds, the age of which are controversial: He, H., Wang, X., Zhou, Z., Zhu, R., Jin, F., Wang, F., Ding, X. and Boven, A. (2004). "(^40)Ar/(^39)Ar dating of ignimbrite from Inner Mongolia, northeastern China, indicates a post-Middle Jurassic age for the overlying Daohugou Beds." Geophysical Research Letters 31, L20609. They date to either the mid-Jurassic, Late Jurassic, or Early Cretaceous, depending on the study. Late Jurassic seems best supported. The more famous Yixian and Juifotang formations consistently date to the Early Cretaceous.
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Aug 4, 2008 2:15:07 GMT
I believe that Piltdowns point is that Maniraptorans are birds and not feathered Dinosaurs. To him birds have feathers but Dinosaurs don't.
|
|