So then why are they shooting off their mouths making statements that they're likely to have to retract later. The article is replete with uncertainty; loaded with words and phrases like: *could have been*,*probably*,*are thought*,*Scientists think*,*the possibility exists*,*it appears to show*.
Even other scientists are unsure of the conclusions drawn.
But not all were convinced by the conclusions drawn by the Spanish researchers. Professor Begun considers it unlikely that Pierolapithecus was ancestral to orang-utans.
Professor David Pilbeam, director of the Peadbody Museum in Cambridge, US, was even more sceptical about the relationship of Pierolapithecus to modern great apes: "To me it's a very long stretch to link this to any of the living apes," he told the BBC News website.
That all cuts into the credibility of scientists and then they wonder why people don't accept their latest pronouncements like they're written in stone. Once burned, twice shy.
""That all cuts into the credibility of scientists and then they wonder why people don't accept their latest pronouncements like they're written in stone. Once burned, twice shy"
Well, its good to be skeptical of sweeping scientific pronouncements in the popular press. Now, Science magazine is better that the local newspaper but still its written to be dramatic.
Look at the difference between the actual quote from the scientist
>>Pierolapithecus probably is, or is very close to, the last common ancestor of great apes and humans," said Professor Moyà-Solà.<<
Then compare the summary as written in Science magazine
>>Salvador Moyà-Solà of the Miquel Crusafont Institute of Palaeontology in Barcelona and colleagues subsequently found parts of the skull, ribcage, spine, hands and feet, along with other bones.
They have assigned it to an entirely new genus and species: Pierolapithecus catalaunicus . <<
Then the more sensational headline from the BBC story
>>'Original' great ape discovered<<
and then headline with comment added on Freep
>>'Original' great ape discovered [New genus "Missing Link" found!]<<
The original scientist knows his work has to be checked by others and Science magazine showed that there will be scrutiny but as you get further from the source it gets more sensational.
So I would say you are right to be skeptical of popular press scientific pronouncements. If it cuts into credibility its the credibility of the main stream media, but we all know that's iffy sometimes anyway.
This discovery will get checked out, they will check the genetics (which takes time) and the authoritative bodies of science will weigh in - the action is in the peer review process and that's slow and not very exciting.
In the mean time we all like fast news and headlines -it gets other scientists interested and if this discovery is wrongly classified then it will almost certainly get corrected.
This isn't even a theory.
The standard to call something a theory is quite high.
>>According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.<<
So you are critical of them for being tentative instead of certain, which is how science works, and then critical of them for using tentative language?
That all cuts into the credibility of scientists and then they wonder why people don't accept their latest pronouncements like they're written in stone.
Maybe they'd have more success with you folks if they used a burning bush?