Re: Orthodoxy in science

[pwillis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Paul Willis)]

>Dear All,
>
>Last night, on the BBC Home Service, their was a science programme
>discussing orthodoxy and academic vested interest in science. One of their
>case histories was the K - T boundary, a subject dear to the hearts of many
>of those in this group.
>
>The bottom line was that the sexiness of the asteroid impact theory and the
>ease with which the media can add 'spin' (i.e. contemporary meaning) to the
>tale has allowed what is, at best, a contreversial hypothesis to be
>accepted with all the gravity of an accepted theory like Newtonian
>mechanics (if you will pardon the pun).
>
>Interviews with scientists like Hallam and Maclean made me feel this was
>more about personalities than science: where some will 'jump on the
>bandwagon' of a charismatic and / or Machiavellian self publicist;other's
>with alternative theories with more experience and equally compelling
>evidence (irrespective of whether they are right or wrong) are banished to
>the backwaters (i.e Europe and Canada?).
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Neale.

After just having read Officer and Page "The Great Dinosaur Extinction
Controversy", I must confess that my previous acceptance of bolide impact
extinctions has been severely challanged. However, a fair portion of the
books was not so much concerned with the evidence for and against bolide
impacts and other extinction scenarios as a consideration of the
personalities involved and the effect of the media in propagating one
particular theory. In places the book verges on claims of outright fraud.
Certainly there was plenty of food for thought in this little tome.

Cheers, Paul


Dr Paul M.A. Willis
Consulting Vertebrate Palaeontologist
Quinkana Pty Ltd
pwillis@ozemail.com.au