
Originally Posted by
WVBIG
Thanks for the link. It seemed like it was written by Steven King because they could've written all that was really necessary in a paper 10% of the size.
I think you may be being unduly dismissive of what is "necessary" and your attitude towards their need for detailed explanation rather betrays your understanding of the reality of science. It's not for those with a short attention span.

Originally Posted by
WVBIG
Why not just say it was x-rayed with top quality equipment?
Because if I want to independently test their findings I need to know
exactly what they did. Otherwise how can I know if any differences between my findings and theirs are due to something really meaningful or are just because I developed the film using a different method? They're being exact and that is absolutely essential.
Many's the scientist who has fallen into disrepute because he found something extraordinary that nobody could replicate.

Originally Posted by
WVBIG
Why describe the plates more than once? etc...
In the methods section they describe how the plates were made, which allows others to replicate the work or to use a similar method for new work.
In the results section they describe what they found, plainly and with no interpretation or reference to the broader implications. This ensures that the reader can digest the information free of the authors' potential bias or any other spin.
In the discussion section they bring all of that information together with the current state of the field of study and interpret it all in context. The authors can make a broader point, an argument, from a synthesis of all the data and how it relates to other known data.
This is methodical, thorough and is the basic format that all good science is presented in.

Originally Posted by
WVBIG
This story was covered on a documentary recently & it proves my point that just because something is covered on tv, it doesn't mean there isn't solid science to back it up.
Nobody would argue against that and I don't think anybody is. What I'm saying is that this is not
always the case. Showing an example where it is the case does not disprove my point. I can show many examples of TV coverage of science that has been so wrong as to be actually dangerous.
And as it happens, much of the TV coverage of this fossil was rather exaggerated. From the behaviour of the media, one would think this was the only fossil link between humans and other primates ever found, or that it was a critical piece in the fossil record. It was neither really. It was just a very nice fossil that told us a little piece of a story we already know most of. The TV guys didn't get this. Or spun the story so it would sell better.

Originally Posted by
WVBIG
I feel all the necessary info was covered in the documentary.
Necessary for your needs, sure. It informs you just a little bit and that's the end of it. There's a lot more detail, both in method and results that matters a lot to scientists. And you're claiming that the print format is not required. This is clearly not the case, even if you personally don't have a use for it.