From: iwsbarke@acs.ucalgary.ca (I W Scott Barker)
Subject: Re: dragons were dinosaurs?
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 20:08:47 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

> Not every apple has been dropped?  Do you doubt gravity because the
> test is not exhaustive?

You cannot doubt the existance of something which has not been proven to exist.
"Gravity" is nothing more than the manifestation of certain effects - the
attraction between two masses. It has never been observed outright, and is
merely an invention of humans used to describe an effect we have seen.
What you can doubt is that gravity always causes things to fall. To date, it
is true that gravity has caused everything we know of to fall. Thus, it is a
fact, until proven otherwise. Hoever, it is not "impossible" that one day we
may discover or invent an object which gravity has no effect on.

> There comes a time when the available evidence is overwhelming an
> withholding agreement is simply being perverse.  The evidence that
> dinosaurs died out long before man appeared on the scene reached this
> stage some time ago.  To hold out hope that this is not so is absurd.

To hold out hope is never absurd. Until Columbus showed otherwise, the vast 
majority of people, both experts and laymen alike, believed the world was flat.
Obviously, it is possible that experts and majorities *can* be mistaken.

> True--but with the amount and quality of evidence that is available,
> any claim to the contrary falls under the strciture that
> "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  It is *not* up
> to anyone to 'prove' that dinosaurs and humans could not have
> coexisted--but, rather, for those that make such claims to either put
> forward their evidence or *shut*up*.  So far, every attempt to come up
> with such evidence has been more fit for laughter than serisou
> examination.  (One is reminded of one of Stephen J. Gould's
> correspndents who examined some purported human-and-dinosaur track
> specimens.  He was amazed.  He was amazed that the hoaxer hadn't even
> disguised the chisel marks.)

I agree. However, the point I was trying to make was that it is not
*impossible*. Lacking proof otherwise, it is reasonable to assume
dinosaurs and humans did not co-exist. It is the most logical conclusion.
That does not mean it is correct.

> At this time, with the evidence that is available, it is about as sure
> that a dropped apple will fall that *all* dinosaurs died out before
> primates evolved into anything that can reasonably classed as 'homo'.

Again, I agree. Both occurences are the most probable. But that doesn't mean
every other occurence is *impossible*.

> At this point--*you* find the one you claim can stand scrutiny.  All
> claims so far have proven to be false.  The general claim that
> astrology is bunk is well founded.  To believe otherwise is wooly
> minded mysticism.

> Likewise.  If you believe this stuff, there's an old adage 'a fool and
> his money are soon parted.'  P. T. Barnumhad a suitable quote, too.
> The one about the sorts of people that are born every minute.

> *Examine* the existing data.  There is a large body of it clearly
> showing that all such claims (to date) are false.  There is enough of
> it that the presumption that all future, similar claims will also
> prove to be false.

Not all. Just recently in England an elderly lady described "spirits" which
were visiting a man she had never met. She described them accurately and
even pointed them out in a photo the man had of his entire WWII squadron.
That claim has yet to be shown to be false. Of course, that doesn't mean it
isn't a hoax.

> How sure are you that your foot was on the brake pedal?  You indicate
> no mechanical problems evident after the fact.  The simplest
> explanation (and one borne out by numerous investigations of accidents
> of this general type) is that you *thought* you hit the brakes, but
> really hit the accelerator.

Of that I can be 100% sure. I knew where my feet were. I even looked to make
sure. That's when I turned the car off. I know that I was not panicking, 
because I was in no immediate danger, apart from needing to slow down.
Besides, I did not "hit the brakes". I was driving along, the car began 
accelerating, I removed my foot from the gas, the car continued to accelerate,
and so I used the brakes. The car was accelerating even when my foot wasn't
on *any* pedal.

> Not DEFINITELY--but once there is a sufficient accumulation of data
> and experience that all points in the same direction--it becomes the
> way to bet.  It is certainly true that nearly every branch of human
> knowledge has had revolutionary changes in theory, but in most cases,
> those have been refinements and extensions of theory.  The
> obesrvations and data are not invalidated--just the explanation of
> *why* things happen the way they do.  Einstein did not overthrow
> Newton--he showed where Newtonian approxiamations no longer held for
> practical application.  The vindication of the basic ideas of Alfred
> Wegner didn't change what rocks are where--but it provided insight
> into how to use those rocks to deduce the history of a place.

I agree again that with enough evidence, it is more likely. Again, however,
theories have been overthrown completely: the geocentric universe, the flat
world; there have been many instances where established scientific facts have
been found to be incorrect.

> No discovery tomorrow will prevent any presently working device from
> working and no new theoretical insight will change a single
> fossil--though it may change where you go to look for fossils related
> to the ones you've already found.

True, and the new place you look may lead to the discovery that dinosaurs
were around with humans. Probably not, but it is possible.

The whole point is that based on evidence to date, all scientific facts are
the most likely - including that dinosaurs and humans did not co-exist.
However, that does not mean that it is *impossible* that tomorrow, the
facts may change.

> >And BTW, I'm not American, I'm Canadian.
> 
> Pity . . .  I had hopes that the Canadian school system was better
> than ours.  Please tell me you're the exception--not the rule.

Our system *is* apparently better than yours: we do not summarily accept the
judgements of others. We are taught to be open-minded and thoughtful enough to
accept possibilites. Apparently, the American system doesn't encourage the
same. Perhaps we are educated and you are indoctrinated.

[Note: this is beginning to degenerate into a flame war. I would invite others
 to express their views with less aggravating tone. Also note that I do not
 seriously believe that the American system indoctrinates. However, it seems
 that some people are incapable of forming opinions different that those held
 by "experts". We have the same problem in Canada. It is unfortunate that so
 many people are incapable of remaining open-minded in spite of scientific
 or religious dogma. Especially since it is a recognized "fact" that all
 scientific theories and laws are temporary - and this is recognized world-
 wide by *serious* scientists.]

--
Scott Barker
barker@enel.ucalgary.ca

"Love sickness is like sea sickness... You think you are going to die, and
   everyone else thinks it's hilarious!!!"
   - Orson Welles (?)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science