Earth Recovered Quickly From Extinction Event

jmoloug1 writes "Traditional theory is that the earth took up to 10 million years to recover from the dinosaur extinction event. However a newly discovered site has revealed that this estimate may be way off. CNN has the article describing how quickly a tropical rain forest grew after the catastrophic event 65 million years a go."

I love to paleontology numbers...

[pruneau]

Good news guys, if we manage to trigger a nuclear winter, it will only take 1.4 millions years to have forests back instead of 10 !

...Plan accordingly for the food into your nuclear shelter guys.

Re: I love to paleontology numbers...

[Black Parrot]

> Good news guys, if we manage to trigger a nuclear winter, it will only take 1.4 millions years to have forests back instead of 10 !

> ...Plan accordingly for the food into your nuclear shelter guys.

Cool! With the saved space and reduced food requirements I can now plan on taking four girls instead of three!

This just in

[billcopc]

In other news, a crack team of researchers led by world-famous physicist Mister Wizard, have been found guilty of pulling numbers out of their ass.

Re:This just in

[Perdo]

wrong story.. I think you want the worldcom/anderson story. This is about a quick envirimental recovery not a quik economic recovery. That will probably take longer than 1.5 million years

Re:This just in

[Katravax]

Damn shame you got modded down. Your comment is the only one close to the truth. Seems like they've all been revising their dates lately, doesn't it? Why should we believe that have any idea about them now? They insisted they were right before.

Krakatau

[Perdo]

Krakatau volcano blew it's top in 1883. It has a ring of rainforest girdleing it's base despite it's continuing eruptions. Krakatau's explosion is still considered to be the most energetic single event in civilized history. Krakatau is now home to many species of birds, monkeys and smaller cousins of the komodo dragons.

I'd venture that life did not take 1.5 million years to recover from the extinction event. We just have not looked in the right places for the right fossils. I'll bet that someday we will find a meteoric Vesuvius/Pele, and right on top of it we will find the fossils of life that came back immediately after the event.

Re:Krakatau

[Austenite]

Yes, but Krakatoa didn't cause extinctions of species, except in the (relatively) local area. The re-population by migration is nearly instant, on a geological timesecale. I mean, you're only talking 120 years. Perhaps if we'd found that a new ecosystem consisting of previously un-evolved lifeforms had developed around Krakatoa in the last 120 years, then your point about finding the right fossils might be valid.

Re:Krakatau

[TwP]

Undoubtedly, the turbo-encabulator has now reached a very high level of technical development. It has been successfully used for operating nofer trunnions. In addition, whenever a barescent skor motion is required, it may be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocating dingle arm to reduce sinusoidal depleneration.

Re:Krakatau

[Tideflats]

Here's a link to the crater left by the K-T impact: http://miac.uqac.ca/MIAC/chicxulub.htm

Nonlinear Relationship

[4of12]

Yeah, but Krakatau was still limited in magnitude, despite being the largest recorded eruption in civilized history ( I think Toba [www.hi.is] in Sumatra was the largest if you include less civilized history.)

I think the rapidity with which life regenerates has a lot to do with the magnitude of the event.

The supervolcanoes, despite their devastating effects, don't seem to be quite as potentially catastrophic as collisions with space debris.

A sufficiently large comet or asteroid really could wipe out so much of higher life forms that Earth might have to re-start with single cell organisms.

Re:Krakatau

[cp99]

I agree with all of your post, bar one small point. I believe that the biggest eruption in civilised history occured at Taupo in New Zealand in 186 AD. While NZ wasn't inhabited at the time, it was recorded in China and Rome.

If you look at a map of the North Island of New Zealand, you'll see a large lake (with great fishing). That's the caldera left behind.

(Interesting link. [learnz.org.nz])

Re:Krakatau

[hayden]

While NZ wasn't inhabited at the time, it was recorded in China and Rome.

Actually I think you'll find that New Zealand was inhabited at the time.

Re:Krakatau

[cp99]

Not by humans it wasn't.

As I understand it, Kupe discovered NZ in approx. 950 AD, with large scale settlement occuring by 1300 AD.

Re:Krakatau

[MadAhab]

I think you're right. There's no reason to think that life would have been so devastated. Species, yes, but remember that everything that dies leaves an expansion niche for something that survives. It's possible, of course, that you wouldn't have much diversity for a while, but as surviving species expanded into different kinds of enviroments (previously made unavailable due to competing species), you'd see differentiation rather rapidly.

Re:Krakatau

[j_w_d]

It's interesting to consider the issues about this. I had never considered that vegetation populations would be slow to recover from the K-T event. You would think that after the primary dust load had settled, vegetation would start to rebound. That would imply no more than decades for the earliest paleocene plant communities to begin to re-form. The most successfull early colonists would be forms that were not dependent upon external polinators. There would be a period following where plant populations partially dependent upon animal and insect vectors to spread and reproduce waited until the necessary vectors appeared, or the plant species adapted or became fully extinct.

Re:Krakatau

[Perdo]

There would be a period where extremophiles ruled the earth. Given their vast variety, it would not take long for them to capitalize on areas that were both less extreme and lacking in competition. Look at some of the non-extremophile phyla life forms that nonetheless live in extreme environments. Ice worms live in glaciers and have antifreeze for blood. Blind cave dwelling newts and fish whose ancestors have not seen light for 20,000 years. Rodents who spend their entire lives underground and have an ant like organization and social structure. Arctic wildflowers that have 5 weeks of summer and are absolutely frozen the rest of the year. The ability of life to re-colonize devastated areas even if evolution is required to survive in it's new environment is well documented. Obvious examples are Krakatau but parallels can be found almost everywhere. Antibiotics are the comet to human diseases. Disease adapts to the new hostile environment and moves back in as few as 100 bacterial generations. 100 generations for arctic wildflowers to survive at the equator.

Luther Burbank created the Shasta daisy, yellow center with white petals, around the turn of the century. I have seen them growing in Alaskan tundra. 100 years to go from Sunny California to becoming a dominant arctic wildflower.

Recovery from the extinction event did not take 1.5 million years

Re:the natural conclusion of evolution is atheism

[alienmole]

the natural conclusion of evolution is atheism

Almost right. What you mean to say is, "the natural conclusion of rational thought is atheism".

Re:the natural conclusion of evolution is atheism

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how that is the case. It is pretty easy to dismiss established religions by giving it some tought. OTOH existance is a very real (pun intended) problem. As far as rational thinking goes, it might have as well been the case that nothing have ever (whatever that means in the absence of time) existed. Several prime causes of existance can be imagined and any particular one may or may not solve the puzzle depending on what exactly it is. Traditional gods do not help solving the puzzle at all, it remains a mystery how god came into being, but that might not be true for some possible prime causes. It may be that some answer do exist and we (you and me, that is) just don't know about it. If I ever come across a likely candidate for such a cause, I can't see how rational thought would "save" me from "believing in" it. As of now, I have no answer whatsoever and I'm ready to consider any possible (no matter how improbable) alternative to "something exists because somethiing does" answer. I also fail to see how rational thought dismisses that such a probable answer is possible.

BTW, no, I'm not agnostic. Any resemblance to their ideas is a misunderstanding on your part about what agnosticism really is.

Proudly AC

Re:the natural conclusion of evolution is atheism

[alienmole]

You're discussing a different question, that of our existence, which is not the same as the question of the existence of deities.

To dispute my point, you'd have to describe a deity that can withstand rational analysis. If such a deity solves the problem of our existence, so much the better, but that's a different issue.

BTW, it can be a little misleading to worry about things like the "cause of existence". This kind of question often tends to arise from a mistaken understanding of what science tells us, which is less than most people imagine. Science tells us how things work, but it very rarely answers any real "why" questions, or at best, it pushes them back a level.

For example, Newtonian physics didn't tell us anything about what gravity "is" - it's simply a mysterious force generated by mass. Similiarly, we still have no real clue as to what mass is (elusive Higgs bosons notwithstanding). General relativity did no better at explaining gravity, it simply shifted the mathematical explanation to warping of an imaginary spacetime continuum which apparently has very similar mathematical properties to the spacetime we occupy, but says nothing about what spacetime "is" or what warping of it "means".

An easy way to solve all the mysteries of existence is via a more Zen-like approach, which recognizes that we can never solve any of the mysteries of existence and is simply satisfied with what we can determine about the world. The purpose of science is not to explain the mystery of existence; it's extremely doubtful that this is even remotely possible.

Re:the natural conclusion of evolution is atheism

[maraist]

You're discussing a different question, that of our existence, which is not the same as the question of the existence of deities.

Yes and no. Many philosophers spent their lives trying to prove existence through the use of the proof of dieties. Descartes merely managed to prove a questioning being exists as that which questions, and kant rationalized that a fact (a more useful component of existence, or truth) is something that can be traced to a time and a place. They both heavily delved into theological proofs, but I've been utterly unimpressed by those approaches. My point is merely that the two questions are usually intertwined.

Science tells us how things work, but it very rarely answers any real "why" questions, or at best, it pushes them back a level.

For example, Newtonian physics didn't tell us anything about what gravity "is" - it's simply a mysterious force generated by mass.

...

but says nothing about what spacetime "is" or what warping of it "means".

I disagree. And further return the finger of misleading back towards you. It's possible to phrase a question such that an obvious (but incorrect) answer manifests itself.

Newton quantified gravity, and you say he was incapable of saying why gravity is or works. But another point of view is to say that he created gravity to say "why" things fall. "why" do planets orbit the sun (or the moon the earth). "why" are there tides? Why is there the phrase "all things that go up, must come down". Further, the science of force tells us "why" a bird can fly, and more importantly, an understanding of this question allows us to formulate theories on how we too can fly.

Science is filled with questions and answers for why. Relativity, quantum physics, string theory, and ethereal-theory all attempt to answer questions left after Newton. That is the beauty of science, we're never left with a lacking of questions of why. Most importantly, it constantly finds answers to many of them; Just maybe not the ones we're interested in at the moment. Many of the answers are to questions we didn't even know we needed to ask (such as with nuclear science).

As for the "why's" of existance. It may be a useless question; much like asking, what is the significance of a roll of 3 comming immidiately after a roll of 2. Perhaps in some particular context the question is important, but outside that context it's patently useless. We ask why do we exist for several reasons (actually, I personally don't ask the question because I don't fall into that context; I don't have a need to know that why. Life seems to make sence without it); We ask it because we feel empty and need some purpose / challenge / destination. This mentality easily manifests itself in a society based on conquest / advancement / rewards and punishment. But this is much like looking at some distance, noticing that it's finite, then assuming that if a finite length can exist, it's opposite, an infinite, must also exist. Thus we can speculate that distance can be infinitely long (though much scientific logic and evidence contradicts this for our universe; e.g. the logical thought that the universe can not be both infinitely old and infinitely large which requires a white sky instead of a black one.). Likewise, we can see the pattern that short durations of life can be made more meaningful through accomplishment and the over-comming of hardship and thus attempt to apply it to the entirety of not only one's life, but all existance. There is, likewise, no evidence that this is the case, and further, the rampant proliferation of rewarded evil-doers and abused altruists poses tremendous evidence contrary to such a mechanism. e.g. people that don't work hard get rewarded, people that never endure hard-ships have triumphs, those that strive for what is right are made to look bad, stolen from, started over, die young, etc.

Note that this doesn't disprove why-filled existance, but merely says that those that have faith in a particular "why" have no empirical evidence, and are thus imagining things (even if their imagry turns out to be true in the end).

What's more, the point of science for eyons (e.g. zillions of moments. :) has been to combat societal arbirary dogma reguarding the why's and more importantly the constrained how's (e.g. theologically enforced rules). Plato's dialectic was an attempt to argue with his jailor about the reasoning for his imprisonment. The cause was that he violated some theological dogmatic rule that had no logical basis. "Why is it wrong", he asked. "Because the Gods say it is wrong". But of course, nobody had ever heard the God's speak, thus the information could eventually be traced back to some human theologan. In our retrospective point-of-view, we easily label them as arbirary pagans with primitive and unfair legislation. But we're no better today. We feel with Christianity, Judaism and Islam that we have a good handle on morality, but in fact all come to differing conclusions on contemporary problems.

The "whys" of today are no more determined by theology than by science. Theology can say when it's all right to have an abortion, e.g. some theological figure can make some analogy / parable / declaration which provides difinitive direction for their flock. Likewise science can say when there is a self sustaining level of biological activity within the fetus or pre sex-cells. Both approaches are heavily subject to interpretation, but do offer mechanisms for truths. And as with our discussion here, provide some satisfaction that we understand "why" something is right or wrong. i.e. I might understand that a sex-cell is not a whole person, and thus morally accept any abuse of sex cells, so long as they're not mated. Thus would argue that all abortion is illegal. Though religious conservatives tend to make this claim, they use science - NOT theological dogma - to make this claim. And of course, this is a dangerous game, because I can say that the half cell has all the required elements to "live" as a skin cell or a neuron or a heart cell; It can process food into energy and atuate that energy in a self-promoting fashion. It can regenerate it's cell walls, etc. etc. Thus I personally would argue that all life is equally valuable, no matter it's insignificance; from a sexless ameoba to a multi-cellular televangelist. Most importantly, this implies that plants are just as alive and valuable as animals, so I'd argue that vegans are completely deluded (as opposed to vegetarians, who may simply prefer the more delecate diet). The counter-balance to this is that my use of science says that ther is no hardened line for such a moral question. The "why" is this law valid blurs away, just as "why" does gravity work fades. My answer to both is that we're not spoiled little humans that have all the answers presented on a silver plate. We're going to have to work hard (individually or as a group) to resolve these unanswered questions. What is the appropriate threshold between killing and murder? What is the extent that we can discern and utilize cosmology?

Why do we live? Personally, I say this is another useless question. I say that to "live" is scientifically ambiguious and thus a misnomer. More properly, if categorized with consistent labels such as compatible with organic molecular structure, or at a higher level, obtaining self-consciousness, we can easily answer many moral questions. Unfortunately, science must constantly revise it's categorizations.. From "what goes up must come down", to "force fields, which include gravity", to "relativity, which handles high velocities or massive bodies", to quntum physics which redefines small spaces to string theory, which redefines the number of dimensions in which we live. When dealing with science, we simply have to "live in the moment" and trust our current understandings. With religion, we have to "let go of our self" and give in to another's interpretation of divinity. Similarly with faith (which is more general than organized religion), we have to place values on experiences that often frustrate our desired courses in life (e.g. historical "profits" and "saints" had experiences that made them believe not only in an almighty, but in the almighty's plan which required timultuous life styles from them, such that others would follow and benifit).

-Michael

Re:the natural conclusion of evolution is atheism

[global_diffusion]

Descartes merely managed to prove a questioning being exists as that which questions,...

I hate to nitpick, but Descartes did not thing with his "cogito ergo sum" argument. Rather than try to make my own argument, I'll use Bertrand Russell's. This is an exerpt from "The Problems of Philosophy:"

"... [S]ome care is needed in using Descartes' argument. 'I think, therefore I am' says rather more than is strictly certain. It might seem as though we were quite sure of being the same person to-day as we were yesterday, and this is no doubt true in some sense. But the real Self is as hard to arrive at as the real table and does not seem to have that absolute, convincing certainty that belongs to particular experiences. When I look at my table and see a certain brown colour, what is quite certain at once is not 'I am seeing a brown colour', but rather, 'a brown colour is being seen'. This of course involves something (or somebody) which (or who) sees the brown colour; but it does not of itself involve that more or less permanent person whom we call 'I'. So far as immediate certainty goes, it might be that the something which sees the brown colour is quite momentary, and not the same as the something which has some different experience the next moment. "

Mod parent up

[iangoldby]

Excellent points! Thank you.

Re:the natural conclusion of evolution is atheism

[alienmole]

I was responding to a religious nut who was "in-your-face"-ing me. Tit for tat has been proved to be the best strategy in the Prisoner's Dilemma, perhaps it'll work on /. too...

Mount Washington

[Anonymous Coward]

On a ridiculously smaller scale, after Mount St. Helens erupted on March 20, 1980, the surrounding forest was devastated. However, it started regrowing a lot faster than most scientists predicted.

Hope they keep good records

[quantaman]

The site was discovered in 1994 by a state highway worker. It is scheduled to be demolished later this year in a road-widening project.

Hopefully now that this finding is out they'll be able to postpone the demolition. Wouldn't it be dissapointing to have a discovery of this magnitude and not be able to check it out to the full extent because you're rushing to beat the demolition crew?

They learned from Douglas Adams

[Hektor_Troy]

Earth was destroyed to make way for an interstallear bypass, so why shouldn't something as insignifigant as scientific progress stand in the way of a road?

Yeah, but...

[fm6]

... the extinct animals were still extinct, right? For them, there was no recovery.

Percentages

[fm6]

I think it's more like 99.999%. Beside the point. Yeah, most species are extinct, but those aren't the ones we care about. We care about the ones that are around now, and that we're interdependent on. If the ecosphere gets fucked up, and we lose our current biodiversity to mass extinction, we can't just wait around for their replacments to evolve. By the time that happens, we'd certainly be extinct ourselves. Maybe you don't mind being extinct, but I do!

quick is relative

[g4dget]

was flourishing as early as 1.4 million years [after the event]

That may be "quick" from some points of view, but if it takes 1.4 million years for our forests to regrow, we are in trouble...

Dating Methods

[elijahao]

Are there any links or more detailed analyses of the archaeoligical find? I'd like to know what methods of dating they were using to be able to throw around 1.4 million year numbers.

Generally the dating methods used are quite unfalsifiable. We have no way to prove any of the data that they return.

BTW, on a related note, where is the crater from the extinction event they refered to? Anyone have links for that?

Re:Dating Methods

[j_w_d]

Speaking as an archaeologist, it was NOT an archaeological find. The pertinent fields are paleobotany and paleontology. Archaeology deals with human traces and the remains of human activities. The events discussed in the article relate to a period long before there were any homonids, let alone any humans. I realize many bookstores shelve dinosaur books right there alongside archaeological books, but that is merely a failing in modern education.

The idea that geological dating methods are "unfalsifiable" is a view pushed by "Creation Science" - an "oxymaroon". Besides being the darling idea of Creationists and "young earthers," the idea happens to be based upon assumptions about science and geology that are either wrong or straw-man arguments. Geological dating methods are methodologoically justified estimates based upon empirical observation and generalization. They are not theories. If you do not like the dates and have some reason for challenging them, go out, collect the necessary data and offer your own estimate. Charles Lyell could do it; so can you. Geological dates are not considered absolute by anyone who produces or uses them. That is a practice only encountered in politics and religion.

If you want to know more about the crater, point a search engine - google is good - at "K-T boundary Yucatan" and you will receive many pointers to large numbers of web pages.
The name of the crater, BTW, is "Chicxulub."

Re:Dating Methods

[On Lawn]

One of the greatest threats to science today is encompassed the phrase "they are not theories." All to often some very insecure scientists will become overly convinced of their own opinions to the point of taking any critisizm as an attempted discrediting. They often retort with logic that sounds like a the school bully describing why he's the boss of everything... "If you do not like [it] and have some reason for challenging [me], go out, collect the necessary [friends] and [meet me by the bike rack after school]."

Limitations should not be swept under the carpet, and have been acknowledged freely by every professor I've had. People shouldn't feel bullied by Science but invited to participate. For instance,

Carbon-14 dating (among others) has limitations. Carbon dating of artifacts from Roman times shows some fluxuations of almost 100 years of items with known and dated origions. Given that they were for the most part less than 2000 years old, thats almost 5% difference in relatively fresh samples.

I'm sure to an archeologist like yourself, this is old news, and not very noteworthy. It does not discredit carbon dating, but it does show its limitations. Scientists admit freely the limitations and will usually put a range of dates on an artifact, and base the judgements on factors including but not limited to carbon-dating and other methods.

But as you also know, the amount of carbon-14 that is generated in the atmosphere, is not constant [webmuseen.de] over time and location. It is unlikely that two objects from the same year would come up with the same date.

If that isn't bad enough, all dating practices based on radioactive decay are subject to statistical error as the specific decay of these atoms are random in nature.

Raising the "Anti-Creationist" flag and rallying the troups turns science into a political spectical, and hurts science more than helps it.

Re:Dating Methods

[cp99]

I think that your being a little bit unfair on the parent poster. From my reading of it, he wasn't making a claim that radiodating is perfect, but rather he was disputing the orginal posters claim that dating was unfalsifiable. As this bit of untruth is often spread by "scientific" creationists, mentioning them is fair enough.

Re:Dating Methods

[fluffy666]

>>

But C14 dating is not the technique used here...
Attacking this method is irrelevent to the topic.

It's not so much 'raising the anti-creationist flag' as 'just wanting people to go and learn the basics of how radiometric dating is done - including the error checking involved before they start ranting on about it'.

For instance, your statement on the randomness shows that you don't understand the stastics of random events happening to very large numbers. But that's not going to stop you posting it, is it?

Re:Dating Methods

[j_w_d]

The orignial post was not talking about radio carbon dating, which could not have been applied. Radio carbon dating is limited in usefulness to the later Pleistocene. As regards secular variation and the other sources of error in radio carbon dating, well, that is why tree ring calibration was developed. It enhances accuracy considerably. Even so, youn still mistake the point regarding theory. Theory justifies methods. Dates used in geology, paleontology, and archaeology (except for speaking engagements and dinner) are based upon methods, which in turn are based upon theory. The theory can be falsified or modified, which will alter the methods and any dates dependent upon them. You don't "falsify" dates.

For example the original half-life of radio carbon was underestimated resulting in systematically under-estimating ages and dates. Calendrical calibration from old world sites was consistently in conflict with radiocarbon dates and ultimately lead to improved physics of radiocarbon.

Variation in radio carbon saturation in the atmosphere is a different problem. Since the amount of new radio carbon is a product solar weather, there are significant random variations from year to year and apparently across larger time spans as well. As you mentioned, during the period from about 2500 to 2000 years ago there some big variations that effect the use of radio carbon. These were found because of tree ring calibrations carried out with wood from the bristlecone pine. But, and this is somthing that seems to always pass under "creation science" radar, prior to the Reformation, ALL corrections to radio carbon dates have tended to yield OLDER dates. After the Reformation, the Seuss effect begins to come into play as fossil carbon from coal and later from oil dilute atmospheric radio carbon, artificially aging modern radio carbon dates. Then, finally, with the advent of atomic weapons testing, there is a brief period when there is an enhancement of atmospheric radio carbon, which at least partially offsets the Seuss effect.

The bottom line is still that you don't falsify dates. You have to falsify the theory that justified the methods, which in turn yielded the dates. And no one outside of "creation science" should argue that such methodologically based dates are "absolute in the calendrical sense, which happens to be the strawman argument that cs employs when attempting to befuddle and bewilder their audiences.

Now, to be fair, you DO encounter the terms: "calendrical," "absolute," and "relative" dates in archaeological literature. The usage derives from trying to differentiate between extremely different approaches to dating in archaeology. One approach is based upon historical, calendrical data (Biblical dates, Egyptian dates, Mayan dates etc.) With some exceptions, these are considered unarguable - there is no means by which they could be wrong, or so one might think. There are however serious discrepancies between Egyptian and Biblical dates that apparently cannot be reconciled. In China and Egypt whole segments of history have been concealed or deleted from most records. Calendrical dates are therefore known to have problems and there is no stated error margin that can give you an estimate of accuracy. You hope the historian you are depending upon is not lying. You hope that the corrections you are using to convert from calendar another are not mistaken.

"Relative" dates are based upon known stratigraphic relationships of various materials in other archaeological sites. This allows us to "relatively" date our site because using methods such as seriation and intersite comparisons, the relative age of a site compared to others can be guessed.

You will find archaeologists referring to geochemical dates as "absolute," but this means that the date can't change without a change in the theory upon which the date is based, or new methods that better implement the implications of the theory. And, since the archaeologist is "absolutely" dependent upon some else's arithmetic . . . However, texts, such as Martha Joukowsky's, that use the term also warn about the error margins that geochemical dates are subject to. So "absolute" is not being applied in an "absolute" sense.

This is in direct contrast to your garden variety creationist telling you absolutely that the earth was created in 6,000 BC, on October 23, at 9:00 AM. The term "absolute" is being used in profoundly different ways and the creationist will not be offering any error margins. Before there can be any legitimate discussion between such different views, there has to be some aggreement upon language.

Re:Dating Methods

[On Lawn]

I agree whole heartedly, and I'd take exception to any creationist or otherwise that accuses an entire field of study to be entirely "falsefied".

Your post is much more vigorous than mine, and explains the shortcomings of dating. I appreciate your time in working it up.

But I hope that no one misses the main point. The tendancy people have of drawing lines and categoricaly throughing garbage across that line is idiotic. Specifically for a person of science (from a person of science) to fly the flag of science as a banner of perfection in defence of their claims is irreprehensible, as I believe the poster I responded to was doing.

True science is much more humble and unpretensious, eager to discover truth through the metrics of usefulness(1). At least it should be.

(1) Here usefull is not a judgement of a theories applicability to humanity, but an ecapsulation of the goals of the scientific method to find reproducable results. i.e. if the results are reproducible, then the theory is "useful".

Re:Dating Methods

[j_w_d]

True science is much more humble and unpretensious, eager to discover truth through the metrics of usefulness(1). At least it should be.

I would not go THAT far. If scientists were particularly humble, we would still be in the Middle Ages. I would say that scientists in general have to be not only egotisitical enough that they believe they can identify an issue of nature or society, but that they can also explain it, AND defend their explanation on the assumption that is as good as any and better than most. In this sense the process of science is quite Darwinian and the property of "utility" is the locality upon which selection operates.

No, there has to be plenty of ego in science. In fact, I suggest that key themes in stories like Frankenstein are founded upon the common social distrust of such egoism. But then, I like to think I do science and that I do it as well as most;-).

Re:Dating Methods

[On Lawn]

Heh, good point.