On 2011-09-01 09:36, panlives wrote:
http://bigthink.com/ideas/39416?utm_sour......um=email

On 2011-09-01 13:11, Woland wrote:
...the competitiveness of the dinosaurs was incrementally eroded by a variety of seemingly independent events. The emergence of diseases

loss of habitat

changes in patterns of competition

and perhaps most improtantly the appearance of more resourceful competitors led to their inexorable decline.

Such a pattern can be seen in history...

Moreover, my confidence in Gould's work has been shaken by the finding that he must have deliberately falsified the cranial measurements he made in order to discredit Samuel Morton's work:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/......ispute/1

That Morton's data are reliable despite his clear bias weakens the argument of Gould and others that biased results are endemic in science. Gould was certainly correct to note that scientists are human beings and, as such, are inevitably biased, a point frequently made in “science studies.” But the power of the scientific approach is that a properly designed and executed methodology can largely shield the outcome from the influence of the investigator's bias. Science does not rely on investigators being unbiased “automatons.” Instead, it relies on methods that limit the ability of the investigator's admittedly inevitable biases to skew the results. Morton's methods were sound, and our analysis shows that they prevented Morton's biases from significantly impacting his results. The Morton case, rather than illustrating the ubiquity of bias, instead shows the ability of science to escape the bounds and blinders of cultural contexts.

On 2011-09-02 11:12, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Quote:

Moreover, my confidence in Gould's work has been shaken by the finding that he must have deliberately falsified the cranial measurements he made in order to discredit Samuel Morton's work:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/......ispute/1

Nothing in the link or any of the support links within it suggest "deliberate falsification" by Gould. In fact, if you read the original 1978 Gould article he does not accuse Morton of misconduct, but suggests that Morton's alleged methodological errors were likely due to preconceived (yes, racist) notions.

Lewis, et. al. claim that Morton's results were not skewed, as Gould suggests. They conclude

Quote:

That Morton's data are reliable despite his clear bias weakens the argument of Gould and others that biased results are endemic in science. Gould was certainly correct to note that scientists are human beings and, as such, are inevitably biased, a point frequently made in “science studies.” But the power of the scientific approach is that a properly designed and executed methodology can largely shield the outcome from the influence of the investigator's bias. Science does not rely on investigators being unbiased “automatons.” Instead, it relies on methods that limit the ability of the investigator's admittedly inevitable biases to skew the results. Morton's methods were sound, and our analysis shows that they prevented Morton's biases from significantly impacting his results. The Morton case, rather than illustrating the ubiquity of bias, instead shows the ability of science to escape the bounds and blinders of cultural contexts.

BTW, it is worth noting that Gould was second author in the original Punctuated Equilibrium article. It should be called Eldridge and Gould's theory. But fame does funny things to public consciousness.

John