[qeternity]

Worse than that. This is “I can use basic, uninformed reasoning to work through a complex, highly domain specific problem”. Usually people who think they know more are at least able to face the facts when it’s clear that they don’t. This group of people know that they don’t know as much, but believe their “superior” intellect can’t make up for it...

[swayvil]

Seriously.

I think it's because of the way they see the problem domain. Both ways of seeing the problem domain look much the same.

I mean, a thoroughly explored domain and an utterly unexplored domain present much the same picture, in that...

There are not many unexplained mysteries hanging around.

Which may be translated to "The problem domain is thoroughly understood".

It's the problem of invisible stuff. You can't measure its extent.

[JoeAltmaier]

Oh get over yourself. Its a "That doesn't seem to answer anything" comment. If the paleontologists had an answer, why are they making flippant comments and un-founded guesses?

[qeternity]

> If the paleontologists had an answer, why are they making flippant comments and un-founded guesses?

Right, like I said, person with no domain knowledge alleges experts are making “flippant” and “unfounded guesses”.

What exactly were you trying to prove?

[JoeAltmaier]

Again, just what I wrote. Guessing mastadon behavior, extrapolated from what living mastodon? Speculating on behavior vs probability of ending in the fossil record - is that a thing? Where has that been studied? Ignoring risks taken by female mastadons - giving birth, defending calves. Are those part of the behavior group that affects likelihood of fossilization? Nothing in this (soft) article about that.

Let's be totally honest. Paleontologists have make astronomical errors in interpreting probabilities and statistics in the past.