So, good science was done to confirm with reasonable probability that this is, in fact, Copernicus' body. However, when you read the comments posted by random CBC readers (I take no responsibility for my Canadian compatriots) it seems that a few people in the public body don't really understand how the process of "doing science" works.
How would you rewrite the story to include a little lesson on what scientists consider when formulating conclusions? Is there a phrase or two that would clarify the logical steps the scientists took to their current conclusion?
Read the news story (linked to below, and sent you in loopmail yesterday afternoon), read a few of the comments posted by the less-than-well-informed public, and post some comments of your own here. Your comments should address the two questions posted above.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/11/20/copernicus-dna.html
