quote:
In a way I am trying to advance Crichton's challenge to GW in this thread, and perhaps take on the character (or spirit) of his antiGW guys. I think it is a way of challenging scientific method itself, or rather sloppy methodology, using a specific context.
I don't know that he challenges scientific methodology. His characters (and his comments in the end of the book) implore people to use the scientific method i.e. he claims that the science has become politics, not that the scientific method is inadequate.
quote:
I'm assuming you have more up to date paleo and modern climate info than I do since you are still in the field. Were C's refs pretty accurate, or did you spot some errors?
Actually, I do pure genetics work. My colleagues do some work on these issues as they pertain to the end Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions. But I mostly just grunt and nod when they go into detail...sort of what they do when I try to explain nucleotide diversity estimates in extinct muskox populations to them.
I have to agree with crashfrog on Crichtons writing. While I enjoyed the book, I was heavily biased by the end where he slams the state of the peer review system. But the story itself and the character development was really really lame. Kenner's monologues were entertaining but the rest of the cast had as much substance as extras on the A-Team...though his books are great for learning foreign languages....I read part of Jurassic Park in German..(only part because I knew what happens and got bored half way through).