Triceratops may never have existed

I love the subject of dinosaurs but hate how malleable the "facts" of that time are. They should stick with the name triceratops. This reminds me of the whole Pluto fiasco when some leading astronomers decided they wanted Pluto to be re-classified as a "Plutoid" and not an actual planet. I think the final decision was a dwarf planet, but still.

Scientists and their reclassifying things.

Heartbreaking.

Damn, I was just beginning to like Triceratops! And they will have to remake Jurassic Park.

Hmm... Whenever i read news like this, I use to wonder why these types of errors are not identifiable earlier.

Hmm... Whenever i read news like this, I use to wonder why these types of errors are not identifiable earlier. Well, that's mostly because the classification is typically based on the facts that we know so far. When new factual evidence surfaces and doesn't comply with our current standing, then it's reformulated. It's a pain sometimes, but I rather have information corrected rather than believe something that is untrue. I say typically because this is not always the case. Some archeological findings in the past were contradictory and leading scientists chose to ignore them. Pursuing research ... [More]

Scientists and their reclassifying things. I know, its terrible isn't it, the idea of being able to re-evaluate your position in the light of new discoveries, thus improving your theories and advancing society forward. Why can't science be more like religion and just angrily flap around without any particular direction for the odd couple of millennia?

Science by definition is ever changing. So don't be alarmed if after another 10 years or so, they say that the triceratops were actually a different species and pluto was actually a planet. We should learn to accept science as it is, it is an educated (or just purely assumed) guess using observations at that particular time. Nothing in science is set in stone and will never be... if any scientist actually disagrees with that then he is fooling himself. Science is great if done properly... so the least you can do is read how they came up with their conclusions and assess whether or not they are... [More]

I know, its terrible isn't it, the idea of being able to re-evaluate your position in the light of new discoveries, thus improving your theories and advancing society forward. Why can't science be more like religion and just angrily flap around without any particular direction for the odd couple of millennia? Is the society really advancing with these cases? I think that is just a relative idea. Years later, they might come back to the same basic ideas or even wipe out past theories on certain things. Is this progress for you or just being full of it? Religion doesn't flap around without direc... [More]

Is the society really advancing with these cases? By definition, all scientific progress is important, no matter how incremental. We live in a supposedly enlightened society, and one that should never say that any particular piece of knowledge isn't worth knowing. You might not see the point in this, but this is how progress works. You build on the incremental advances of previous discoveries. You can't say "this isn't worth knowing" because you have no way of telling where this knowledge might lead. I think that is just a relative idea. Of course it is. All progress is relative. Years later, ... [More]