오

According to their logic, every people in the world is just a bodybuilder over 200 cm tall.

For most participants, the real meaning of evidence-based analysis in peer-reviewed literature hasn't set in yet. Whether they're arguing for the "right" conclusion or not, their goal is to win an argument and defend their feelings and aesthetic preferences.

When these kids argued (and will continue to argue) about Nanotyrannus or Spinosaurus or whatever else, the actual evidence isn't really in play. They take sides based on aesthetics—on the mental image of the prehistoric world that they prefer to envision.

this should be considered a victory for evidence and proper evaluation of data and science. But I'm sure it'll be considered as vindication that wanting something to be true and arm waving about what someone else said they measured on a specimen no one else had seen, gave the *right* answer.

to be convinced. Now that has happened, people like me and @arctomet.bsky.social and @stevebrusatte.bsky.social are saying 'yes, this is convincing, Nano appears to be valid' *because* the scientific method was followed, and *not* because people *thought* that it was. In short...

that had already been dismissed or contradicted in the literature were the way to go and that we should have listened to them. But I and so many others always said that what we wanted to see was convincing data. Proper material, properly studied, with real measurements and testable data...

These kind of people only pay attention at what they want to see.