'Dragon prince' dinosaur discovery 'rewrites' T.rex family tree
bbc.com
bbc.com
(As the mum of a 5 yr old and 3 yr old, I feel obligated to become an expert on all things dinosaur.)
As an uncle to an obsessed 3 year old I concur! My jaw dropped when he rattled off "pachycephalosaurus" and I had to look it up to confirm (he might have added a syllable or two but that's ok)
(I think I'm actually the obsessed one, to be honest, but I like to blame my children for my own obsessions)
Every Damn Time: A teacher in the gathering will ask a question... and before we can answer, one of their students does. Correctly.
Or: "Why isn't (some tiny detail) correct?"
It has some advantages over a book written by a single expert: most importantly, it can cover multiple points of view and cover controversies more impartially.
One of the problems with expert views is that they often fail to distinguish between what is well proven, what is a current consensus because its a best guess, and what is a personal opinion/pet theory.
I was in the academia for some years and didn't find in my field any expert that was incapable of distinguishing well proven Vs opinion. That might be the defining characteristic of an "expert".
Maybe we just have different definitions of expert? To you and expert is someone who just defends his pet theory, and to me an expert is the same as the rest of the scientific world understands it.
Confusing someone whose job is to push their pet theory with an expert makes you sound like you've had very little exposure to science.
The experts of the kind to which you're presumably referring, who are much more tapped in to the whole state of a broad branch of knowledge, often end up being more "science communicators" than people on the frontier of research. The thing is, though, that these "science communicators" often end up being (or start off being) more akin to a papers/Wikipedia jockey than a credentialed academic actively working in the field. So in that sense, someone who "knows a lot about dinosaurs and can effectively write about them as the broader field currently perceives them" need not necessarily be a credentialed expert.
I can tell that the ideas you're conveying don't come from your own experience, I'm guessing you heard them from a "science communicator"?
By contrast, I do have direct experience, and the best people were doing research, not talking to the media, and they were perfectly aware what kind of evidence exists for which ideas - in fact more than anything else, this is what being an expert is.
Talking to the media is a different job than being a researcher, I'm sure you'll agree. What I would like to understand is where this belief of yours come from, that the less knowledgeable people will have a better high level picture? Wouldn't the best high level people come from experts who make an effort to learn about those aspects?
An add hominem attack. So was your reply to me.
They are capable of it, but they do not always bother to do it when talking to a non-academic audience.
One example that comes to mind is how advice on diet has changed over the years because advice was given (e.g. avoid dietary cholesterol) that was not well proven. Another was the introduction to a fascinating book I read a few years ago on the complexities of evolution (e.g. genetic changes with multiple effects, gene transfer, etc.). In the introduction the authors explained that colleagues had pressured them not to publish because it differed from the simple model of evolution taught in schools so would encourage creationists.
Economists are often biased towards their own political opinions.
I don't know about the specific case you're talking about. However, the scientific method is that when new evidence comes in, experts update their beliefs. What do you think they should do instead?
In the other case they were arguing for deliberately impeding the sharing knowledge because the hoi polloi could not understand it. They wanted the public told what was good for them, not the truth.
I can tell you what my point is: an expert will know more than a journalist. I have no idea how this can be controversial. If it wasn't the case, the journalist would be the expert and it would become true by definition.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ...
An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
The idea that experts are super-humanly free from bias is ridiculous.
(Girls surely do too, but I cannot attest to that)
Essentially, as hunter-gatherers every group of humans needed one or more experts on the local megafauna, so virtually all of us have some degree of fascination with big animals baked in, but some have more than others. I've also heard the same hypothesis used to express young boys' obsessions with trucks and trains.
Probably a developmental phase somehow connected to quadrupeds. Large object of interest. Four supporting thingies.
Elephants! Which is apparently our closest approximation of Sauropod skin, which we actually have fossil impressions of.
I went down the same rabbit hole as you for the same reason, more Dinosaurs had more feathers than we originally thought, but not all. For example, the theropods out your window have lots of feathers, so other theropods like T-Rex and Raptors might have as well, though the bigger theropods probably had fewer than the smaller ones.
T. rex has the opposite.