For example, in this post [0] he argues that a pinecone was cushioned by the snow and that's why it didn't bounce off the rail. But he fails to notice that ther

For example, in this post [0] he argues that a pinecone was cushioned by the snow and that's why it didn't bounce off the rail. But he fails to notice that there's the same amount of snow on the rail and on top of the pinecone. Instead of his hypothesis, what I think probably happened was that the pinecone bounced on the deck and then up to the rail, where it was before the snow started falling. It's not a matter of looking at objects vs processes like he claims, it's a matter of looking at what objects (in this case, the snow on top of the pinecone) can tell us about processes. [0]http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/science/an-odd-discovery.html http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/science/an-odd-discovery.h...