3 ms·

I certainly am not confused, but you certainly are too sure of what you know. But that's quite alright, not everyone is cut out to be a scientist. So how do yo

I certainly am not confused, but you certainly are too sure of what you know. But that's quite alright, not everyone is cut out to be a scientist. So how do you verify that the fossil was found where they said it was found?

omginternets 10y ago
>But that's quite alright, not everyone is cut out to be a scientist. I apologize, but I can't resist the urge to ridicule you: I have a Ph.D in cognitive neuroscience so I think I'm more "cut out to be a scientist" than most. >So how do you verify that the fossil was found where they said it was found? You would have to ask a paleontologist, but I would be inclined to verify the following: - You should find evidence of tectonic forces in fossils (fissures? encasings of a specific rock type?) that are consistent with the location in which they were claimed to be found. - You should find other fossils near the location of the original - Less satisfying, perhaps, but fossils are photographed on-site when they are found and the pictures are annotated with date, time and GPS coordinates - The encasing sedimentary rock should contain the same proportions of minerals as the purported location. So, again, you are misinformed/confused. Rather than lashing out, I urge you to take a genuine interest in these things; it's essential to understand a claim before disagreeing with it.
- auggierose 10y ago
  That's fine, you are a biologist then. That's about what I thought, as it is the natural science most removed from mathematics and proof. All of the above are nice indicators, but not above being faked by people who know exactly how these things are normally verified, except maybe the "finding lots of fossils nearby" point, which is unlikely if that fossil finding was so spectacular. I am not emotionally involved in this argument, as you seem to be, sorry for trolling you, I just couldn't resist. You basically cannot win this argument: in the end you will have to admit that none of this constitutes proof. Another Ph.D. here who knows one or two things about proof.
  - auggierose 10y ago
    Another comment to round up the previous one: If there are experiments I can perform in principle AFTER the fossil finding to convince myself that the fossil finding is not a fake, then this would constitute enough experimental proof for me. Because then the fossil finding has in fact become a repeatable experiment. The only question then would be if the journal that accepted the paper about the fossil finding has performed these verifying experiments?

omginternets 10y ago

>But that's quite alright, not everyone is cut out to be a scientist. I apologize, but I can't resist the urge to ridicule you: I have a Ph.D in cognitive neuroscience so I think I'm more "cut out to be a scientist" than most. >So how do you verify that the fossil was found where they said it was found? You would have to ask a paleontologist, but I would be inclined to verify the following: - You should find evidence of tectonic forces in fossils (fissures? encasings of a specific rock type?) that are consistent with the location in which they were claimed to be found. - You should find other fossils near the location of the original - Less satisfying, perhaps, but fossils are photographed on-site when they are found and the pictures are annotated with date, time and GPS coordinates - The encasing sedimentary rock should contain the same proportions of minerals as the purported location. So, again, you are misinformed/confused. Rather than lashing out, I urge you to take a genuine interest in these things; it's essential to understand a claim before disagreeing with it.

auggierose 10y ago
That's fine, you are a biologist then. That's about what I thought, as it is the natural science most removed from mathematics and proof. All of the above are nice indicators, but not above being faked by people who know exactly how these things are normally verified, except maybe the "finding lots of fossils nearby" point, which is unlikely if that fossil finding was so spectacular. I am not emotionally involved in this argument, as you seem to be, sorry for trolling you, I just couldn't resist. You basically cannot win this argument: in the end you will have to admit that none of this constitutes proof. Another Ph.D. here who knows one or two things about proof.
- auggierose 10y ago
  Another comment to round up the previous one: If there are experiments I can perform in principle AFTER the fossil finding to convince myself that the fossil finding is not a fake, then this would constitute enough experimental proof for me. Because then the fossil finding has in fact become a repeatable experiment. The only question then would be if the journal that accepted the paper about the fossil finding has performed these verifying experiments?