Back in the first post about our recent paper on bifurcated cervical ribs in apatosaurines, I noted: This has been much on my mind of late, especially as the majority of talks at SVPCA 2023 and many new papers involve numerical methods.

Last night a thought occurred to me, and I wrote to Matt: If birds had gone extinct 66 Mya along with all the other dinosaurs, would it ever have occurred to us that they had flow-through lungs?

Thanks to everyone who’s engaged with yesterday’s apparently trivial question: what does it mean for a vertebra to be “horizontal”? I know Matt has plenty of thoughts to share on this, but before he does I want to clear up a couple of things. This is not about life posture First, and I really should have led with this: the present question has nothing to do with life posture.

{.size-large .wp-image-15256 .aligncenter loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“15256” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2018/08/25/down-in-flames/enterprise-fiery-reentry-st3/” orig-file=“https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/enterprise-fiery-reentry-st3.jpg” orig-size=“1024,516” comments-opened=“1”

One thing that always bemuses me is the near-absolute serendipity of the academic job market. To get into research careers takes at least a decade of very deliberate, directed work, and then at the end you basically toss your diploma into a whirlwind and see where it lands.

We know that most academic journals and edited volumes ask authors to sign a copyright transfer agreement before proceeding with publication. When this is done, the publisher becomes the owner of the paper; the author may retain some rights according to the grace or otherwise of the publisher. Plenty of authors have rightly railed against this land-grab, which publishers have been quite unable to justify.

I just saw this tweet from palaeohistologist Sarah Werning, and it summed up what science is all about so well that I wanted to give it wider and more permanent coverage: https://twitter.com/sarahwerning/status/277321783571517442 This is exactly right. Kudos to Sarah for saying it so beautifully.

I think I figured out what the core, immutable quality of science is. It’s not formal publication, it’s not peer-review, it’s not “the scientific method” (whatever that means). It’s not replicability, it’s not properly citing sources, it’s not Popperian falsification. Underlying all those things is something more fundamental. Humility. We all know that it’s good to be able to admit when you’ve been wrong about something.

{.aligncenter .size-full .wp-image-6948 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“6948” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2012/10/10/counting-beans/thx1138/” orig-file=“https://svpow.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/thx1138.jpg” orig-size=“1007,445” comments-opened=“1” image-meta=“{"aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":""}” image-title=“thx1138”

An interesting conversation arose in the comments to Matt’s last post — interesting to me, at least, but then since I wrote much of it, I am biased.  I think it merits promotion to its own post, though.  Paul Graham, among many others, has written about how one of the most important reasons to write about a subject is that the process of doing so helps you work through exactly what you think about it.