Are you as Amazed as I am? At how fast the paleontologist are making up facts for the new dinosaur?

Question

The fossilized duckbilled hadrosaur is so well preserved that scientists have been able to calculate its muscle mass and learn that it was more muscular than thought, probably giving it the ability to outrun predators such as T. rex.

This is pure conjecture and it is being presented as fact. I dont believe anything they say. Why should I?

I have an engineering degree, and a Master degree. My world is based on facts. Not on conjecture. Guess I tend to get a little excited. There is room for faith in God but not faith in false science.

Answer 1

yeah, so there!

I agree that the info is pure conjecture

Answer 2

Cratertot is right. If you hear about scientists 'proving' something or making definite statements, it is usually misinformation on the part of the reporters. The scientists present their conclusions, and too often, the media takes it to mean fact. Scientists themselves always use terms like 'suggests' or 'the data indicates that...'

This enforces a layer of objectivity between the scientist and the research. If the conclusion is later contradicted by new evidence, there's no problem, since there are no personal statements that the scientist must stick to.

In the end, you say "I don't believe anything they say." You're right! Science is based on the continuous scrutiny of new ideas. New data necessitates re-examining old conclusions all the time. Any data (provided that it is obtained with the proper controls and transparency - i.e. you minimize the variables, design the experiments well, and allow other people to observe/verify it) is welcome. Even if data doesn't lead to the conclusion that you want, it is still a little slice of the truth, and can open up implications and avenues of research that you hadn't thought of.

As for the last sentence, why should you believe what they say? Unless have training and education in paleontology, you're not their peer. You can look at their arguments and look for basic procedural things, like experimental design and that their arguments hold together, but unless you are trained in their field, arguments against their conclusions won't really hold any weight.

You have a skeptical mind, though, and that's a good thing. When you come across something that seems a little fishy, go back to the researchers' original journal articles (not second-hand accounts that you'd see on TV, newspaper, magazines, etc - they're all watered-down and often misleading). Do a little reading yourself, and see if it really adds up. Science as a whole is strengthened by well-thought-out and well-researched skepticism.

I would recommend, as a good starting point, The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/). They put out a free weekly podcast, in which they discuss scientific research, pseudoscience, and other claims (some true, some false). It will really open up your eyes to many of the junk science that is going on in the world.

Answer 3

fact???

you do know that they said 'probably' and 'may have out run'... those are not definitive terms. I didn't see them stating anything as fact.

are you biased against scientists??? for some reason you seem to be jumping to conclusion about them.