TexasCHLforum.com

marksiwel wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

HighVelocity wrote:The secret to receiving an uninterrupted stream of research funding is to occasionally find "something".

Just saying...

Yep. Although in this particular case, they did find something. What is questionable is what it means. As I pointed out above, that could be very much in dispute.

I always wonder how much information it would take for them to find to "Prove it" to some people.

That is the core issue. Some people are easily swayed. Others are grasping for any straw to uphold a belief they have for which the existing evidence is beginning to crumble. I can't go further into that without entering into a philosophical or religious discussion which would be counter-productive to this thread, except to say that I know what I believe, and the science I've studied tends to reinforce my faith rather than dissipate it.

marksiwel wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

HighVelocity wrote:The secret to receiving an uninterrupted stream of research funding is to occasionally find "something".

Just saying...

Yep. Although in this particular case, they did find something. What is questionable is what it means. As I pointed out above, that could be very much in dispute.

I always wonder how much information it would take for them to find to "Prove it" to some people.

Prove what? It falls down to the fact like HighVelocity said, that it is not uncommon for teams to 'fond things' that may or may not be really anything new, but might help their funding and continued research by theorizing it might be something new. Kinda like the folks that find a 'chupacabra' and get on the news, but once it really is examined they find out it it is just a bald raccoon.

Keith B wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

HighVelocity wrote:The secret to receiving an uninterrupted stream of research funding is to occasionally find "something".

Just saying...

Yep. Although in this particular case, they did find something. What is questionable is what it means. As I pointed out above, that could be very much in dispute.

I always wonder how much information it would take for them to find to "Prove it" to some people.

Prove what? It falls down to the fact like HighVelocity said, that it is not uncommon for teams to 'fond things' that may or may not be really anything new, but might help their funding and continued research by theorizing it might be something new. Kinda like the folks that find a 'chupacabra' and get on the news, but once it really is examined they find out it it is just a bald raccoon.

Poor Raccoon... do you think Rogaine would help?...

Paleontology is a fun Science, but it's a lot of hard work to find the data! This is an interesting find, and I think it supports the idea that there were various hominids existing simultaneously for very long times -- some longer than homo sapiens. Next question: Where did they all go?

marksiwel wrote: I always wonder how much information it would take for them to find to "Prove it" to some people.

If I may, Science isn't about "proving" something, necessarily (although the GW crowd will vehemently disagree with me). It's all about the collection of data, then drawing interim conclusions from that data, then testing those conclusions, then finding more data (rinse, repeat). Science is about building our understanding, not about finding the Ultimate Truth.

For example, we have tons of data about Troy, but we will never be able to "prove" that level III was Homer's Troy.
Another example is the number of atomic models that have been published in the last 130 years or so, and I'm sure we aren't yet even close to where we want to be in understanding "the atom."

Oh, yeah, I'm a Scientist and Engineer in one of my jobs. Talk about split personalities!!

OldSchool wrote:If I may, Science isn't about "proving" something, necessarily (although the GW crowd will vehemently disagree with me). It's all about the collection of data, then drawing interim conclusions from that data, then testing those conclusions, then finding more data (rinse, repeat). Science is about building our understanding, not about finding the Ultimate Truth.

Exactly.

OldSchool wrote:Paleontology is a fun Science, but it's a lot of hard work to find the data! This is an interesting find, and I think it supports the idea that there were various hominids existing simultaneously for very long times -- some longer than homo sapiens. Next question: Where did they all go?

We ate 'em?

marksiwel wrote:

OldSchool wrote:Paleontology is a fun Science, but it's a lot of hard work to find the data! This is an interesting find, and I think it supports the idea that there were various hominids existing simultaneously for very long times -- some longer than homo sapiens. Next question: Where did they all go?

We ate 'em?

I think we've about covered this topic!

The Annoyed Man wrote:

OldSchool wrote:If I may, Science isn't about "proving" something, necessarily (although the GW crowd will vehemently disagree with me). It's all about the collection of data, then drawing interim conclusions from that data, then testing those conclusions, then finding more data (rinse, repeat). Science is about building our understanding, not about finding the Ultimate Truth.

Exactly.

Unfortunately, members of the media aren't as scrupulous as OldSchool is about the distinction.

marksiwel wrote:The creature, nicknamed "Woman X" for the time being, could have lived as recently as 30,000 years ago and appears only distantly related to modern humans or Neanderthals, the researchers reported.

I think she represents Connecticut in congress.