Thursday, December 06, 2007

Science as a process: placoderm muscles revisited

You might recall the discovery of fossil placoderms with preserved muscle tissue from earlier this year. I posted on it here, but noted that there was a problem with the analysis, but I didn't say exactly what. This week, the journal Biology Letters published a comment on this paper by a colleague and myself, along with the response from the authors of the original paper.

It's tempting to write a counter rebuttal here, but I'll just let you read the papers if you have access to them. The point is, this is how science works: we depend on other workers being willing and able to criticise our work when they think there is reason to do so. Because of this, science maintains its credibility and its integrity. A case example for your edification. Enjoy.


Jeremy said...

A shame that it seems to be behind a paywall, so I for one cannot enjoy it.

Noumenon said...

Yeah, I wish you could do more like John Hawks is doing right now and have the major discussion of your paper in the blogosphere.

I came here to see if you had anything to say about the extremely well-preserved hadrosaur they found. It sounds like your paper is too specialized to have much bearing on that.

Given how tough it is to even find the link on the Biology Letters page, I think you should make it a little clearer that it's a paywall.

Anders said...

Hey I just listened to your discussion with Kent Hovind on youtube, and then suddenly heard "Linneaus hometown". I'm really proud that you are a part of Uppsala Universitet. That audioreel should be publicized as promotion for our university. Keep it up!

Roger Waters said...

I just watched your videos on youtube with kent hovind. My gosh! I love that guy!!!

Thanks to his god, he's in prison now... Keep it up :-)