[The Cajun]

If you read what I said, I was saying that we/I was taught way back (1960s) a bunch of "stuff", in the sciences, that has proved to be wrong or partially wrong.
That, I think, is kind of normal as knowledge progresses.

Just look what has been learned about T-Rex compared to what was thought and taught about it 50 years ago.
There are still debates as to if it was the apex predator or a scavenger or a combination of both and how fast it could really run and if the thing had feathers.

That being said, I like anomalies or the prospect of an anomaly that buck current scientific orthodoxy.
Most of the time an adequate explanation is given or "cobbled together" that will suffice and satisfy questions............But sometimes not :)

[Windflier]

I was taught way back (1960s) a bunch of "stuff", in the sciences, that has proved to be wrong or partially wrong. That, I think, is kind of normal as knowledge progresses.

Absolutely true. If it weren't for humans who dare to question 'settled science', all technological advancement would come to a halt.

Much of what the world accepts as the final and definitive answer on a given subject, is merely our best understanding of the thing at this moment in time. That understanding is always open for improvement, as new and better data are observed, collected, and analyzed.

There was a time (in the not too distant past) that heavier than air flight was thought to be impossible by the majority of scientists and engineers. It took a couple of doggedly determined 'heretic' brothers to prove that it is indeed possible.

Countless other examples of debunked sacred cows exist.

The point is, our understanding of the physical universe and what makes it tick, is always expanding and being refined. Theories long held as true, have fallen in the past, and they'll continue to do so into the distant future. We shouldn't be surprised to see it happening in our own time.

[BroJoeK]

The Cajun: "I like anomalies or the prospect of an anomaly that buck current scientific orthodoxy."

Of course, that's precisely where serious scientists can make their reputations: by falsifying past orthodoxy and confirming new hypotheses -- scientifically.

But everybody who can write a book, or post on the internet is not necessarily a serious scientist.
And scientific theories which have been confirmed by innumerable tests, are not going to be overthrown just because somebody, somewhere, somehow reports an alleged anomaly.
It takes more than that -- a lot more.

In this particular example, of super-sized sauropods, we are dealing with 50 year old understandings about largest size limits -- which have since been challenged by new fossil evidence.
Does that mean everything we thought we knew about geological history is wrong, or is it just a misunderstanding about how large land-critters can get under ideal conditions?

I would spend a lot more time studying what we do know, before pronouncing judgment on what we don't.