From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: dragons were dinosaurs?
Date: 21 Aug 92 23:09:27 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <92Aug21.200847.14168@acs.ucalgary.ca> iwsbarke@acs.ucalgary.ca (I W Scott Barker) writes:
>> Not every apple has been dropped?  Do you doubt gravity because the
>> test is not exhaustive?
>
>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.

Perhaps through this entire discussion, we have a difference in
terminology over what constitutes "unlikely", "unlikely in the
extreme", and "don't hold your breath waiting for *that* to happen".

While it is idisputably true that tomorrow, apples may fall *up* (and
the sun may appear to rise in the west), it's not something any sane
person is going to bet on at *any* odds.

I agree with you that such things *could* happen.  I appear to
disagree with you on their probability.  You appear to think the
chance is sufficiently great that one should keep an 'open mind' about
it, while I think that a mind that open is in imminent danger of
having ones brains fall out.

>> 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. 

I suggest, then, that you sit in one half of a moderate sized room and
wait for all the air to rush over to the other side, leaving you to
asphyxiate.  Are you able 'to hold out hope' that you'll be around to
see this happen?  To hold out hope for some things *is* 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.

Hold it.  Just a minute.  The, then, experts knew quite well that the
Earth was at least approxiamately spherical.  The argument was over
the *size* of the sphere.  Eratosthenes got the figure right, a later
Greek got it wrong.  Columbus wanted to use the smaller figure (plus
an erroneously high figure for the distance from the west end of
Europe to the east end of Asia).  The Portuguese were using the larger
figure.  The Protuguese were right.  Without an extra, unknown,
continent in the way Columbus was a dead duck.

>> 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.

No it doesn't mean it's correct--but at the moment, to dispute it is
idiocy.  Find the contrary evidence *first*--then start disputing it.
However--given what evidence is already in, I wouldn't give you a dime
to help you search.  The likelihood of success is too slim to warrant
the outlay--given current data.

>> 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*.

Do you understand the difference between 'impossible' and 'of a
vanishingly small probablility'?

>> 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.  
>
>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.

Sigh . . .  So close and yet so far . . .

For most everyday activities, the Earth is--for practical purposes
flat.  The differences between geometrically flat and a large sphere
aren't important to any number of things we do--driving a car,
ordinary surveying, stuff like that.  Using it as an
approxiamation--*and*knowing*when*it*makes*a*difference* is what
counts.  Likewise for the geocentric universe.  Until the advent of
satellite navigation, a geocentric view was used for getting ships
from one place to another.  For that purpose it works fine--even if
you know it isn't true.  Likewise, we still speak of the sun rising
and setting--a geocentric view.  Quick!  Which way does the Earth
rotate?  Which way does it revolve around the sun?  A astronomer would
probably know off the top of his head--but relatively few other people
will either know or care.  The knowledge that these simple facts of
cosmology have been superceded doesn't change their utility.

>> 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.

It may--but I wouldn't bet on it.

>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.

True--not "*impossible*", but would you be willing to shell out for
the search?  If not, then I conclude that you, too, consider the
likelihood to be quite remote and the standard, current view of this
issue to be correct.

>> >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. 

No?  What is 2, and how do you know?

>We are taught to be open-minded and thoughtful enough to
>accept possibilites. 

Indeed--but apparently not to appreciate probabilities.

>Apparently, the American system doesn't encourage the
>same. Perhaps we are educated and you are indoctrinated.

Perhaps, but the statements you've made don't suggest that much of tha
education took.  Perhaps no one ever bothered to dwell on the sheer
*amount* of evidence--all on one side--of these issues.

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science