Jump to content

New Yorker Article About Tarbosaurus Smuggler Eric Prokopi


Boesse

Recommended Posts

Well, this discussion has certainly taken an interesting turn. Harry brings up an uncormfortable question, one certain to make people squirm and get defensive, but in this day of tight research budgets it's probably good to try think of an articulate and convincing response. From my perspective, I see paleontology more and more as a subdiscipline within biology; although I am sure there is still a role for paleontology within geology, I see fewer and fewer of the old-style papers with the main focus on stratigraphy and correlation, though there is still a lot of interest in biomarkers for stage boundaries. Within biology, fossils are incorporated into phylogenetic studies, are used to date branch points and calibrate molecular clocks/rates of molecular change, and to quantify biotic responses to various extinction events, as some examples.

So, in a larger sense, Harry's question may be applied to the larger scope of biology, and even to the sciences in general. In what sense is it important to understand the diversity and evolutionary relationships of insects, living and fossil, for example? In one sense it is critical, because of the role that insects play in ecosystem dynamics, and because we won't be able to guage the extent or the rate of species loss due to habitat destruction, climate change, and so on if we don't even have a decent understanding of the diversity that exists or that existed before we started messing things up. In another sense it is trivial, in that knowing how many insect species exist won't feed anybody or cure anybody of cancer. What is the appropriate test to apply to determine if something is "important"? If we are to be completely utilitarian, then it is a truism of basic research that we often won't know if something is a critical breakthrough or trivial factoid for years. The trail that led to the discovery of insulin began with a short paper, published years before, that showed that dogs became diabetic when certain blood vessels in the panceas were tied off. Eventually, the question was raised, "what tissues die when those blood vessels are blocked" (the answer was the Islets of Langerhans), followed by the question "what do the Islets of Langerhans do to regulate blood sugar (the answer was secrete insulin). I read somewhere that the average scientific paper is cited only 3 times in the decade following publication, and not at all after that, so most papers are "trivial" in that they do not immediately open up vigorous new field of study, but it is often difficult to know in advace what work will lead to a breakthrough and what to "another brick in the wall".

Anyway, if we are to be strictly utilitarian, then all of art and music is "trivial" in that eliminating art and music from the world wouldn't have any effect on the number of hungry people, the number of sick, etc. Yet the world would be a much impoverished place if all activities that were not directly related to mere survival were to be eliminated. It is part of human nature to question where we came from, and to seek to understand how the world works. Trilobite systematics won't cure the common cold, for sure, but it is part and parcel of the quest to understand the totality of the world we inhabit. Maybe the information will appeal to only a small segment of the population, much as a difficult piece of music might appeal to only a select audience, but the world would be pretty boring if all anybody could listen to was top 40 radio (or golden oldies radio).

Finally, though our attention has been captured by Eric's disparaging comments re paleontology, we shouldn't forget that he admitted to falsifying customs documents so as to bypass importation rules, which ultimately relate to respect for the laws of countries that seek to protect certain types of fossils from unscientific collection and export. While we may personally agree or disagree with fossil protection laws, none of us has the right to decide that some laws are stupid and don't need to be respected. Mongolia and China have a right to regulate the export of fossils if they so wish. Saying those laws need not be obeyed is the same as saying that nations have no right to control their own property or borders. People would get pretty upset if someone was to argue that the US has no right to regulate movement of people or goods across it's border.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to the new technology being used by paleontologists, A'hunter supports my case with this revealing statement: "The use of this technology to examine small fossils is still in its infancy. As it progresses it has the potential to change large parts of palaeontology forever." Sooo . . . What if parts of modern paleontology are changed forever? Who cares! Where's the impact on humanity? The only people who will care, again, are the amateur paleontologists for their personal reasons and the professionals for their personal and economic reasons.

Hi Harry,

Sorry for my rampant spelling errors earlier, I was typing those posts at the bus stop and it's a little cold here today, I corrected the worst of them though. :blush:

More to your point, I think we can both agree that the impact something has on humanity will vary based on viewpoint. Yes? When you ask what impact paleontology has on humanity you are basically asking me to define why I think humanity should value something, and therefore why I value it. Please excuse me then if my answer tends to lean more towards the philosophical than empirical or practical. Here then is my response.

Scientists care about paleontology, biologists care about paleontology, and as the root post of this thread demonstrates governments and people care about paleontology. All these groups, all these people, care how the science of paleontology evolves and moves forward. The impact of paleontology on humanity can be seen in a better understanding of life, the evolution of life, and of how humans came to be what we are today. Furthermore, paleontology is one of those rare sciences that acts as a spark plug for the next generation. The impact of paleontology can be seen in the faces of children when they first read about dinosaurs, or first visit a museum. Paleontology connects humans to our roots in a way not possible by many other sciences. Just like a person is a product of generations of ancestors, our race is a product of epic amounts of life, of struggle, and of success that came before it. For me, paleontology is very much a connection to the crucible that created what I am today. I understand that others view creation differently, and I value and respect their beliefs, for me though the evolution of life on earth is my origin story. Paleontology allows me a physical connection to truths that I hold dear.

There are many aspects of humanity that do not produce economic value or technological value but are still important aspects of our culture. They represent our curiosity and our quest to better understand the unknown. Humans have many questions about where we come from, who we are, and how things work. Many sciences address these questions at the molecular level, or the astronomical level, but paleontology addresses these questions at a level where I live and breath. Paleontology exists at the thin layer of rock and dust that represents the history of life here on earth. Unlike other stars, or atoms, I can reach out and touch that layer of earth. For me and, I think, many others that has great impact.

"They ... savoured the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of ordinary things."

-- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Pennsylvanian stratigrapher I would argue that for correlations, understanding of the Pennsylvanian and associated Paleozoic bedrock (my example) in the Illinois Basin still needs the current paleontological data from important biomarkers as you call them FossilDawg. As those get better refined, and that is by more ressearch on appropriate fauna and flora (fusulinids, ammonites, other inverts, spores in palynology) we can better correlate rocks and find important energy mineral resources such as coal and oil and gas. I would not agree that the work is done, I would agree unfortunately that monies, training and such has gone in other directions that I do not see as good. The work is not done, lots of biostratigraphy to refine. That is area at least I can give my two cents why paleontology is still important whether hydrocarbons or changes in the sun are leading to climate change we have yet to find a good alternate that our country can afford. Even if for example it is wind turbines (for argument sake) the plastics and such in the are likely petroleum based and I do not see our agriculture going yet to alternate energy for farming even if you argue that we should get hybrids (pretty expensive for most budgets including mine). So for the time being energy and other minerals found in sedimentary strata will need the latest biostratigraphic research in paleontology to better understand the complexities of the ancient sediments and how they were deposited and where we can trace resources too in basins and such.

russ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems this thread has rapidly digressed from the original story into a diatribe concerning one quote, in all likelihood taken out of context, as always. The article itself did a fine job of portraying everyone involved, on all sides, as human beings. Eric is not a monster. He didn't sit down one day and decide to become an international criminal. Mongolian fossils have been sold openly in this country at fossil shows and online for years. Arguably, it is also quite legal, assuming no customs violations, as we have no reciprocal agreements with Mongolia. Did Eric go too far? Certainly, but it was an escalation, over years, that in all likelihood involved complicity of some Mongolian officials. As the New Yorker article clearly illustrates, Eric probably has as great a love for fossils as anyone. Typically, this really isn't so much about fossils as it is about money. Sad for everyone, as no one is a winner in this story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your thoughtful - if somewhat puzzling - response, Don. Unhappily, you (and others) are reading into my premise things that are not there . . . things that I certainly do not support. For example, you conflate my basic argument,

I argue that paleontology today is analogous to highly-specialized rock-collecting, interesting to very few professionals and amateurs (I am here discounting curio-collectors) for economic or ideosyncratic reasons, contributing - at this time - little that has significant impact on humanity today or in the future.

with a call for "strictly utilitarian" science. Nothing I have said can be reasonably construed as such a call (and, I am not opposed to art and music). That was over-the-top. My premise is directed specifically at modern paleontology, and may NOT be expanded reasonably to include all of science.

A'hunter cannot get past the personal impact of modern paleontology (When you ask what impact palaeontology has on humanity you are basically asking me to defend why I value something.)

No, A'hunter, I've already distinguished between what you and I appreciate about paleontology versus science with a significant impact on humanity. Seeing awe on the faces of children is not the impact I'm talking about . . . you can see awe on the faces of children at almost anything novel.

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems this thread has rapidly digressed from the original story into a diatribe concerning one quote, in all likelihood taken out of context, as always. The article itself did a fine job of portraying everyone involved, on all sides, as human beings. Eric is not a monster. He didn't sit down one day and decide to become an international criminal. Mongolian fossils have been sold openly in this country at fossil shows and online for years. Arguably, it is also quite legal, assuming no customs violations, as we have no reciprocal agreements with Mongolia. Did Eric go too far? Certainly, but it was an escalation, over years, that in all likelihood involved complicity of some Mongolian officials. As the New Yorker article clearly illustrates, Eric probably has as great a love for fossils as anyone. Typically, this really isn't so much about fossils as it is about money. Sad for everyone, as no one is a winner in this story.

For the most part, this is not a diatribe. This is a philosophical argument, an effort to get subscribers to think about unexamined values. What's important and why?

I think the New Yorker article was the best I've seen on the incident. I wish Eric well. What has happened (and what's still to come) is a very bad thing for that young family.

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Where's the impact on humanity? ...

Hi Harry,

Above is the exact question you posted. I tried to answer your question directly. Perhaps clarifying your question would help. In this and many threads you seem to take a somewhat aggressive approach to debate. I don't really mind that, debate should not be all rainbows and puppy dogs, and in most cases I enjoy your posts and think they do much to increase thought and discussion on the forum. In this case however, I think you have not clearly stated what it is you are asking people to respond to. I've given you my scientific basis for why paleontology is important and my personal basis, if those do not suit you I'm sorry.

"They ... savoured the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of ordinary things."

-- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Harry,

Above is the exact question you posted. I tried to answer your question directly. Perhaps clarifying your question would help. In this and many threads you seem to take a somewhat aggressive approach to debate. I don't really mind that, debate should not be all rainbows and puppy dogs, and in most cases I enjoy your posts and think they do much to increase thought and discussion on the forum. In this case however, I think you have not clearly stated what it is you are asking people to respond to. I've given you my scientific basis for why paleontology is important and my personal basis, if those do not suit you I'm sorry.

Sorry if I sounded short with you. No matter how many times you say it, you are describing the personal, ideosyncratic response to paleontology. Here's the distinction I drew in an earlier post:

But this is all very personal - ideosyncratic - for amateurs and professionals alike. Paleontology is currently making no significant impact on humanity; paleontology is not finding an immunization against HIV, it is not discovering the Higgs boson, it is not finding planets around other stars. Paleontology is backwater science. Paleontology currently diverts us, broadens our horizons, and disciplines minds . . . for just a few of us.

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short... evolution vs. creation. The theory of evolution continues to gain ground as new revealing discoveries are made, and creationist struggle to find a single shred of evidence to support their theory. As time marches on the greater will continue, and the later will struggle even harder. How or what impacts this will have on humanity isn't for me to conjecture. Rest assure it will though... Just my two cents. :)

Finding my way through life; one fossil at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paleontology is currently making no significant impact on humanity; paleontology is not finding an immunization against HIV, it is not discovering the Higgs boson, it is not finding planets around other stars.

I think there is a huge paradigm shift going on right now for a large portion of people on the planet because of paleontology, and I believe that is very significant. I fail to see how discovering the Higgs boson or finding new planets around stars is more important than that. What good is the Higgs boson going to do for you today? Those far off planets orbiting other stars?

You can't judge what impact science being done today will have on the world in 200-300 years, either. There's no need to continue to list reason after reason why paleontology is important or isn't. Everybody is entitled to their opinions and that's all this discussion is. If Harry chooses to believe that paleontology isn't worth the time (or just..isn't doing anything useful for humanity now or in the future) that's his decision. I'm on the other end of the spectrum.

On a side note, I wish the best for Eric and his family. I don't view him as some kind of international fossil smuggling criminal, just somebody who made a mistake (or quite a few) and is going to have to reap the consequences. If he shares Harry's view in regards to fossils and paleontology, that's his decision also. I just simply do not agree.

youtube-logo-png-46031.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paleontology showed us out biological origins and shattered a millenia-old religious paradigm. I wouldn't be so quick to write it off, and am suspicious of anyone who tells we already know all that we will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I don't view him as some kind of international fossil smuggling criminal...

Each of those terms applies quite literally. If you read the New Yorker article, everything goes well beyond mistake, showing forethought and intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short... evolution vs. creation. The theory of evolution continues to gain ground as new revealing discoveries are made, and creationist struggle to find a single shred of evidence to support their theory. As time marches on the greater will continue, and the later will struggle even harder. How or what impacts this will have on humanity isn't for me to conjecture. Rest assure it will though... Just my two cents. :)

I guess the struggle against the unsupported beliefs of the young-earthers is the paradigm shift to which Cris and THobern refer. That was an important effort, as I acknowledged when I wrote:

Paleontology's best contribution to humanity at this point is to discourage the 'young-earthers.'

But, Cris now espouses his own unsupported belief that current paleontology is important science . . . he has faith that current paleontology will pay off in 200-300 years!

And THobern is just conjuring up arguments ex nihilo.

http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page

 

What seest thou else

In the dark backward and abysm of time?

---Shakespeare, The Tempest

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just finished reading the whole article. I can see what THobern is saying, it looks like he knew what he was doing, but I still feel for the guy...I guess more for his wife and kids than anybody, though.

youtube-logo-png-46031.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the struggle against the unsupported beliefs of the young-earthers is the paradigm shift to which Cris and THobern refer. That was an important effort, as I acknowledged when I wrote:

Paleontology's best contribution to humanity at this point is to discourage the 'young-earthers.'

But, Cris now espouses his own unsupported belief that current paleontology is important science . . . he has faith that current paleontology will pay off in 200-300 years!

And THobern is just conjuring up arguments ex nihilo.

Are you referring to allegations against Eric, to which he plead guilty, or my support of Paleontology, already well articulated by others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, Cris now espouses his own unsupported belief that current paleontology is important science . . . he has faith that current paleontology will pay off in 200-300 years!

Just as you do with your own unsupported belief that it isn't now and it won't be in the future. :)

For anybody interested, I found this to be a good article: The Future of Paleontology

youtube-logo-png-46031.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it could take a few hundred years before some mysteries in paleontology are completely answered. Don's post earlier wasn't confusing at all. You can't know what small discoveries now will lead to larger ones in the future.

I never said I thought paleontology would start paying off hundreds of years down the road. I said you can't judge what impact science (in general) being done today will have in the future. (like Don's second paragraph about insulin).

I believe one of the most critical things that need to be addressed is our impact on the environment and on the biodiversity of the planet. The only way to realize what impact we've had is to build some kind of picture of how it was before we were here and that's exactly what paleontology and some subdisciplines of it do right now.

youtube-logo-png-46031.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harry, you merely asserted an opinion based on nothing more than 2 statements, 1) based on some mysterious vitriol for professionals and 2) an opinion that paleontology is less important than other fields which probably wouldn't ruffle too many feathers here or anywhere else. Your ARGUMENT has nothing to it. Its not even an argument. You cant make a divisive statement like that without backing it up one bit. That burden falls on YOU when you make such an inflammatory assertion and yet claim it to be an argument instead. Do some work instead of nitpicking others responses to you and claiming THEY are putting words in your mouth. Maybe they are a little, but thats because you have said nothing except those rather vague statements of opinion. You have nothing to your argument so we are filling in the details for you as we think you must see them. You make a statement like that, then you better back it up and refute all areas of current paleo work as meaningless to humanity, because so far your ARGUMENT as you claim is nothing more than an assertion. You went on and on and on in the threads originally talking about this matter months ago and were wrong, wrong and wrong some more. The guy admits to everything in the story that you claimed might not be true, like the REE signatures, etc etc, everything that you argued turned out to be wrong and pure nonsense and proven by the details and facts that have now come out. .... Thank you. Always a pleasure.

Let's agree to avoid personal attacks, Bobby, and let's stick to my premise:

I argue that paleontology today is analogous to highly-specialized rock-collecting, interesting to very few professionals and amateurs (I am here discounting curio-collectors) for economic or ideosyncratic reasons, contributing - at this time - little that has significant impact on humanity today or in the future.

Merely asserting that vertebrate paleontologists are making serious contributions to various avenues of research does not prove that those contributions have significant impact on humanity. What you describe sounds more like a search for relevance. Perhaps you can give us an example of a big-impact contribution.

(Evo-devo is the latest attempt at a synthesis of evolutionary theory and develomental biology. DNA molecular biology is, I suspect, beyond the ken of many paleontologists. But, it's good that some paleontologists are cross-training into another field of science.)

---Wie Wasser schleift den Stein, wir steigen und fallen---

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Harry,

You are discounting much of our support of paleontology as an important science because you feel the evidence we have put forth is idiosyncratic. Therefore let's throw some objectivity into the ring shall we. Here is some actual data about paleontology and it's current impact within science.

A Web of Science search for 'fossil OR paleontology' returns 60,175 results. These can be grouped by category according to Web of Science criteria. The top 26 categories can be seen below.

post-7497-0-35032100-1358915795_thumb.jpg

Using R I produced these simple plots of paleontological publications by year. The data comes from both Web of Science and PubMed databases.

post-7497-0-31445900-1358932795_thumb.jpeg post-7497-0-29681900-1358932780_thumb.jpeg

The impact of paleontology journals can be seen in the following table. This was generated using the ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports webservice (JCR-Web 4.5). I sorted the list by Article Influence Score and only present the top 20 paleontology journals.

Article Influence Score is defined as:

"The Article Influence determines the average influence of a journal's articles over the first five years after publication. It is calculated by dividing a journal’s Eigenfactor Score by the number of articles in the journal, normalized as a fraction of all articles in all publications. This measure is roughly analogous to the 5-Year Journal Impact Factor in that it is a ratio of a journal’s citation influence to the size of the journal’s article contribution over a period of five years.

The mean Article Influence Score is 1.00. A score greater than 1.00 indicates that each article in the journal has above-average influence. A score less than 1.00 indicates that each article in the journal has below-average influence."

additional information on the metrics presented

post-7497-0-93382500-1358916454_thumb.jpg

For comparison here are the top 20 journals within the JCR-Web list of applied physics journals.

post-7497-0-35988800-1358917159_thumb.jpg

Please bear in mind that this is a very quick and rough bibliometric analysis, still I hope this data will add some structure to this debate. One can dismiss another's statements easily enough. It is more difficult to dismiss actual facts.

"They ... savoured the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of ordinary things."

-- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To keep the data separate from my personal discussion I'm using two posts.

Since the early nineties there has been a clear increase in the number of paleontology publications. However, this could simply represent an increase in the number of publications in general, i.e. an increase in the number of scientific journals. Instead let's look at how and how much paleontology was referenced. There is a broad usage of the terms 'fossil' and 'paleontology' within a number of important fields of modern science, everything from ecology to astronomy. Unfortunately, this does not provide much information about how those terms are used and context can be everything. A more appropriate way to examine the impact of paleontology research is with a metric that takes into account citation rate and can be compared between journals. The Article Influence Score is one such metric. The top five paleontology journals listed above all score above 1 in this metric, meaning that articles published within those journals had an above average influence. Note the top paleontology journal would rank 11th on the list of applied physics journals. Based on these citation rates it seems a number of modern paleontology journals have as much value to the scientific community as many modern physics journals. If this belief is idiosyncratic then the group holding it is the whole of the scientific community, not just professional paleontologists and amatuer fossil collectors.

"They ... savoured the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of ordinary things."

-- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meta-data makes my inner statistician all giddy. :D

"They ... savoured the strange warm glow of being much more ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of ordinary things."

-- Terry Pratchett

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...