You can’t beat the line from the film “Tombstone” when Wyatt Earp is asked what he thinks happens when you die and replies: “Something. Nothing. Hell, I don’t know!” Now that’s as honest an answer anyone can give. It’s too bad so many people are not given to such honesty about the question because to me this is the best of conventional wisdom, and wisdom that transcends any mere conventions.

Wyatt’s reply in the film to the question is far from being original, it’s the one most of us struggle with and many of us would have the same reply to the question. Because of this great unknown, while there is much speculation about what happens when we die admittedly there is little if anything that can correctly be called “conventional wisdom” on the subject. And no matter what personal beliefs one may have about it what, exactly, would be considered conventional wisdom on this subject? Once you think about it, this becomes an intriguing question worthy of much discussion; and what might be suggested as conventional wisdom in one case might be considered ridiculous in another based on a multiplicity of mitigating factors. Still, the sheer honesty of Wyatt Earp’s reply cannot be dismissed, and it is on this basis I consider it the best of conventional wisdom on the subject.

But apart from questions concerning the supernatural and a hereafter, if any, oftentimes scientists have problems with their versions of conventional wisdom that in some cases is very nearly as ethereal as philosophical speculation on subjects like the soul and immortality. The conventional wisdom in science continues to be challenged since the time it was finally determined and accepted the earth orbited the sun. I recall when it became conventional wisdom the dinosaurs met their demise from an asteroid or comet, but now this is being questioned. There were always some like me who doubted the theory, but eventually we wound up on the periphery. However, just as new things continue to be found in astronomy and physics that denies conventional wisdom so with studies of life on our planet.

Thursday, Jan. 10, 2008. Did Insects Kill the Dinosaurs? By Michael D. Lemonick. By now, scientists have a pretty good idea of what conditions were like in the Cretaceous period, which started about 135 million years ago, and came to a sudden end 70 million years later, with the death of the dinosaurs. Or rather, they think they do — but two new sets of research results suggest there’s a lot more to learn. The first has to do with the period’s cataclysmic close. In lots of people’s minds, the mystery of what killed the dinosaurs and other species — paving the way for the rise of mammals — was solved a couple of decades ago: a giant asteroid or comet slamming into the Earth, resulting in a dust cloud that shrouded the sun, cooled the planet dramatically and killed off plants and animals wholesale. It’s a compelling story, but plenty of scientists never completely bought it. The dinos died pretty quickly, they admit, but not quite abruptly enough to be explained this way. So alternate theories — the dinosaurs succumbed to allergies, from the rise of flowering plants, or to world-shaking volcanoes in what’s now India, or to disease — have always bubbled around the periphery of the conventional wisdom…

Other things like dramatic climate changes not due to asteroids or comets are being suggested in conjunction with insects and disease that may account for the demise of dinosaurs; but when you have searched the literature you are left with the uneasy admissions by scientists that they don’t really have an answer to the question; and what was once conventional wisdom is found wanting due to new, and sometimes contradictory when not anomalous findings. The most worrisome thing is that the very same things whatever they may have been that caused the demise of the dinosaurs could very well be the cause of our own; not to mention our having the nuclear power to destroy ourselves without any other “help.”

As a boy I loved reading the National Geographic magazines. They were filled with stories and photos of interesting places and people, exciting adventures by explorers that made me long to take part in such things. But as a boy, it was one thing for my imagination to be titillated by the dangers of such adventures while the reality of the dangers and hardships were not so apparent. But even as a young boy a few of the articles did cause me to question at times how certain conclusions were made on the basis of scant information. It would be quite some time before I could realize even scientists were capable of stretching facts to suit their assumptions; and to my dismay I came to realize even scientists were possessed of imagination! It did not occur to me that scientists were capable of lying; it would take some time for me to adjust to that human frailty in scientists.

So, scientists are human, and like most people may bend some facts to fit assumptions and theories; especially when grants, foundations, big money and big reputations based on university academic credentials may be on the line. The problem here is not unlike the problem “The Da Vinci Code” addressed. But would any group of scientists agree to hide facts that might threaten some widely held and cherished belief? Would any group in politics be strong enough to hide facts about JFK, UFOs, extraterrestrials, Jimmy Hoffa, 9/11, Saddam’s WMD, the “threatening” Iranian speedboats, the latest “promises” of politicians, etc.?

Folks, when you try to analyze such things it isn’t surprising many of us are left wondering and with no better answer than Wyatt Earp: “Something. Nothing. Hell, I don’t know!” To me this is the best of conventional wisdom, a wisdom that transcends mere convention and most importantly transcends the conventional wisdom of the MSM that has fallen to the level of those that believed the sun orbited the earth.