Fish? No Such Animal!

[Arne Saknussemm]

That's right. First Stephen Hawking takes away our black holes, and now Stephen J. Gould declares that there ain't no such thing as a fish. I'm sure he'll be hearing from Long John Silvers.

Check it out:http://swimmingunderwaterblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/there-is-no-such-thing-as-fish.html

 

[Sorcerer]

Damn! What did I have for lunch then? Could have sworn it had scales....

 

[spidergoat]

It's about the labels we apply to things. There are no races either.

 

[Sorcerer]

It's about the labels we apply to things. There are no races either.

If I can't call salmon fish, what can I call it? Apart from salmon.

This means that supermarkets can't have fish counters anymore. They'd have to call them salmon, plaice, cod and other scaly things emporiums.

There are lots of races. There's the 2:30 at Ascot, for example.

 

[GeoffP]

He's been dead for over a decade, so his announcement is more exciting than I think even the OP realises.

Anyway, slightly polyphyletic, I guess, or just polymorphic, meh.

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

It's about the labels we apply to things. There are no races either.

You're right there, Mr. Goat. If I may, here's a quote I dug up from Wiki and used on this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140196-Racial-double-standard&p=3158121#post3158121

Humans of the same sex are 99.9% genetically identical. There is extremely little variation between human geographical populations and most of the variation that does occur is in the personal level within local areas, and not between populations. Of the 0.1% of human genetic differentiation, 85% exists within any randomly chosen local population, be they Italians, Koreans, or Kurds. Two randomly chosen Koreans may be genetically as different as a Korean and an Italian. Any ethnic group contains 85% of the human genetic diversity of the world. Genetic data shows that no matter how population groups are defined, two people from the same population group are about as different from each other as two people from any two different population groups.

And..

He's been dead for over a decade, so his announcement is more exciting than I think even the OP realises.

Your're right too! I didn't realize he was dead, and it is a pretty nifty trick for old Stephen Jay to make pronouncements from beyonf the grave like that!

What else is there then to do, but paraphrase Douglas Adams and say to Dr. Gould, "Thanks, and good bye to all the fish!"

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

P.S. - Memo to Long John Silvers: Let the poor man rest in peace!

 

[C C]

Sounds as much like affairs befitting the first half of 20th-century philosophy.

Extract: "Consider the eye. We perceive our vision as absolutely clear thing, like the film from a camera. But actually, it is, before being processed by our brain, a jumble of images, more like a camera held upside down while riding on horseback, confusion incarnate. And so, given the level of processing it must take in our mind for any conceivable image to become comprehensible, we can never be sure that what each one of us sees is the same as what others do. And here our language is, again, an accomplice, as it is only on this flimsy basis that we can actually communicate what we see. If we are unable to trust our language, than we are unable to understand our own and others world. It all breaks down on the basis of language. And if fish has gone out the window, something that we all think we have a pretty firm grasp of, whose to say what else we think we know is wrong. At what point is something concrete enough in our collective thoughts to be a reality? Is such a thing even possible? Are we truly lost then, without language, navigating internal, landless seas, until we unable to swim further?"​

 

[Sorcerer]

"Humans of the same sex are 99.9% genetically identical. There is extremely little variation between human geographical populations and most of the variation that does occur is in the personal level within local areas, and not between populations. Of the 0.1% of human genetic differentiation, 85% exists within any randomly chosen local population, be they Italians, Koreans, or Kurds. Two randomly chosen Koreans may be genetically as different as a Korean and an Italian. Any ethnic group contains 85% of the human genetic diversity of the world. Genetic data shows that no matter how population groups are defined, two people from the same population group are about as different from each other as two people from any two different population groups."

I've seen this stat many times and it seems to me that it might be flawed. There may be only a few genes that influence the things that define what we call race, primarily size, skin colour, facial features, things like that. It doesn't mean that racial differences are important, just that we notice them.

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

Very nice C C. You remind me of a time when I lived in a place where all the houses were exactly the same, but half were mirror cuts of the other half. So some of us would be back in the kitchen then head out for the front door. Those of us who lived in opposite way around houses would halt, momentarily confounded in the central corridor. These were all people who considered themselves, well, smart enough to discuss black holes and terra-forming Mars and Crimean politics on internet forums, at the very least, and yet you re-orient their living rooms in relations to their kitchens, and they can't find their way to the front door. So how can any of us navigate 'internal, landless seas'?

 

[GeoffP]

Sounds as much like affairs befitting the first half of 20th-century philosophy.

Extract: "Consider the eye. We perceive our vision as absolutely clear thing, like the film from a camera. But actually, it is, before being processed by our brain, a jumble of images, more like a camera held upside down while riding on horseback, confusion incarnate. And so, given the level of processing it must take in our mind for any conceivable image to become comprehensible, we can never be sure that what each one of us sees is the same as what others do. And here our language is, again, an accomplice, as it is only on this flimsy basis that we can actually communicate what we see. If we are unable to trust our language, than we are unable to understand our own and others world. It all breaks down on the basis of language. And if fish has gone out the window, something that we all think we have a pretty firm grasp of, whose to say what else we think we know is wrong. At what point is something concrete enough in our collective thoughts to be a reality? Is such a thing even possible? Are we truly lost then, without language, navigating internal, landless seas, until we unable to swim further?"​

Or it's possible to be really picky in breaking down language.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

. . . . and now Stephen J. Gould declares that there ain't no such thing as a fish.

Then he must become quite apoplectic when he hears the even more incorrect word "tree."

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

Yes, in the book I read that about fish in, the author then goes on to say that there is no such 'animal' as a tree. I thought I might make another post of it when the whole 'no fish' furor died down. And if you'd been reading, FR, we've learned in this thread that the good Dr. Gould has gone the way of all flesh these past ten or twelve years. Apoplexy is no worry for him. :bawl:

 

[Captain Kremmen]

There is no animal called fish, but there is a word "fish" describing animals closely genetically related to each other.
"Elves" do not suffer from the same problem. Their problem is not existing at all.

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

So you're an elvnostic? All right. Next question: do you believe in fairies?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

So you're an elvnostic? All right. Next question: do you believe in fairies?

Lets just say that I would know one if I saw one.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

There is no animal called fish, but there is a word "fish" describing animals closely genetically related to each other.
"Elves" do not suffer from the same problem. Their problem is not existing at all.

There has been at least one well-documented Elvis. Therefore I don't find it remarkable that there might be other Elves.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Is that a very obscure joke relating to Latin declensions?
You are a rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno, Fraggle.

My point is that words have meanings whether or not they describe real things.
So, "a halibut is a fish" has meaning in the same way that "Tinkerbell is a fairy" has meaning.
The purpose of words is to communicate, to transfer information.

Maybe that's what Mr Gould was saying, whom we may still sensibly call "Mr Gould" even though he is dead.
If so, we agree.

 

[Arne Saknussemm]

If you even want to call it a joke. It's not like Fraggle to misread things though.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

"Humans of the same sex are 99.9% genetically identical. There is extremely little variation between human geographical populations and most of the variation that does occur is in the personal level within local areas, and not between populations. Of the 0.1% of human genetic differentiation, 85% exists within any randomly chosen local population, be they Italians, Koreans, or Kurds. Two randomly chosen Koreans may be genetically as different as a Korean and an Italian. Any ethnic group contains 85% of the human genetic diversity of the world. Genetic data shows that no matter how population groups are defined, two people from the same population group are about as different from each other as two people from any two different population groups."

I've seen this stat many times and it seems to me that it might be flawed. There may be only a few genes that influence the things that define what we call race, primarily size, skin colour, facial features, things like that. It doesn't mean that racial differences are important, just that we notice them.

Who are you quoting?