Thursday, April 12, 2012
Sex, drug, disasters, and the extinctions of dinosaurs: response
After reading through this essay a couple of times, i find it difficult at times to comprehend or understand what Gould's was trying to say or point out. It might be because, I was not hooked or that the essay did not grab any of my attention enough to even read more. But having to discuss it in class and listening to the group who were presenting it to us they had my ears wide open. Gould has a lot to argue about and seems to me, he claims he is right and everyone else is wrong. He does this, by talking about science and arguing what science should mean. As stated in the first paragraph "Science is a fruitful mode of inquiry' and not a list of conclusions" he argues the fact the people or "scientist" jumped into conclusion too quickly and that they use conclusion as the main idea and not refer ably as the consequence. Gould is disappointed at the fact people tend to mix theories from methods. What's that suppose to mean? Aren't hypothesis or theories made to be proven, and in order to do so we should find a conclusion for it? Another interesting topic he then talks about, is the extinction of dinosaurs and the three theories behind it. The first one was sex, how one theory states that even the dinosaurs can tolerate increased temperatures, and in such high temperature the male dinosaurs testes become sterilized which would not allow them o reproduce. The second was drugs, this theory states that the dinosaurs died of overdose. The dinosaurs did not have a liver that could detoxify the angiosperms that were supposedly growing on some kind of plant. The third was disaster, this theory claimed that an asteroid or some kind of catastrophe is was led the extinction of dinosaurs. The theory behind e disaster was what Gould supported the most because it was reasonable and there were a lot of evidence to back up this theory. The other two theory on the other hand (sex and drugs) he did not support very well. In fact he argued that it should not be considered as theories and that scientist needed more studies to proof it was right.