4 ms·
He literally says, "Although the exact identity of the producers of the burrows is yet unknown, the dimensions and morphology point to ground sloths and giant a
by Uhhrrr 8y ago
He literally says, "Although the exact identity of the producers of the burrows is yet unknown, the dimensions and morphology point to ground sloths and giant armadillos." https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10420940.2016.1223654?scroll=top&needAccess=true https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10420940.2016.1... That is exactly "Looks like Y, must be made by Y."
I'm not saying it's a bad heuristic. It's fine for coming up with ideas. But they apparently haven't yet found bones or fossilized poop or other signs of habitation by giant fauna.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> I'm not saying it's a bad heuristic. It's fine for coming up with ideas. But they apparently haven't yet found bones or fossilized poop or other signs of habitation by giant fauna. Technically, finding that where you'd expect to find it were they the diggers is still “Looks like Y, must be Y”. Fundamentally, that's the only way to draw conclusions about a process you aren't directly observing. Heck, even conclusions from direct observation are quite literally “Looks like Y, must be Y”.
- DonHopkins 8y agoAnd that makes him not an expert but actually a layperson and an incompetent liar about his credentials how? Did you directly observe that he's lying about his expertise? Can you refer me to someone more qualified, with a time machine, who directly observed what happened millions of years ago, and disagrees with him?