Wikijunior talk:Dinosaurs/Brontosaurus

Controversy
The impression I'm getting here &mdash; subject, obviously, to much more study, is that this is basically unsettled, with individual scientists taking strong positions (so that there will be push-back from claiming it's unsettled) but overall consensus in flux. This article could be an opportunity to teach kids about the essence of science, the consideration of rival theories. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 02:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * . A book that taught children how to distinguish probable fact from likely fiction would be enormously useful especially as it is a primary failing of the education system. Starting with the scientific method and how theory is advanced is a good place. Interestingly I read somewhere that Wikipedia demonstrates that even highly controversial subjects can achieve a consensus among opposed editors because they have a common goal - creating a featured article. I feel the germs of an interesting book, if only I had time to write it. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 08:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In very deed. It's been a pet peeve of mine for many years that "popular science" presentations (where I am, mostly on PBS) almost always present prevailing scientific theories as fact; even when discussing a bit of the evidence, they'll say that such-and-such scientist of the past noticed that so-and-so, and therefore theorized that such-and-so, which we now know to be true, but also thought that thus-and-such whereas we later discovered something-or-other and we now know that whatnot.  Which is completely wrong; we don't know anything through science, and the arguments against science are utter bunk.  Basically, not only do opponents of science treat science as if it were a belief system in the same sense that a religion is, but these popular science programs treat it that way too.  A scientific theory is neither absolute truth nor a matter of faith.  A favorite quote of mine is from a Physics Today review (by Freeman Dyson) of a biography (by James Gleick) of Richard Feynman:
 * Gleik sums up Feynman's scientific credo in one sentence, the clearest statement I have seen of the true spirit of science: "He believed in the primacy of doubt, not as a blemish upon our ability to know but as the essence of knowing."
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)