MR complains about being moderated

[Pinball1970]

Just as soon as you say sorry for the William Wallace fiasco.

We apologize for that, it was a bad call.

EDIT: and over 700 years ago. We forgave Germany and Japan in decades!

 

[axocanth]

I can say, " there is a mammal over there," and point to a cat. It is real in that sense surely?

Ah, but now you're talking about individuals. (Almost) no one denies their reality.

What about the species cat, or the higher taxon mammal? Are they real?

Is the Punc Eek emphasis on species being Darwinian individuals beginning to make sense now? Individuals can do things.

 

[axocanth]

We apologize for that, it was a bad call.

The Rangers hooligans say something unintelligible in reply. ("See you, Jimmy" or something)

 

[axocanth]

Read again the very interesting quote by Coyne and Orr here (post 178):

Did Einstein overthrow Newton?

While we're at it . . . "Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them." - Gould "Dinosaurs are extinct" - fact or not? Or does it depend on whether you nail your theoretical colors to the mast of cladism or Ernst Mayr's evolutionary taxonomy or something else?

sciforums.com

 

[Pinball1970]

What about the species cat, or the higher taxon mammal? Are they real?

Er...

Yes?

Expand please,

 

[axocanth]

Read the quote above.

Roughly, most scientists grant reality to species (though they may fight over which concept from among 30 or so rivals is the appropriate one).

Higher taxa get a lot more iffy. A great many, perhaps most (I dunno), biologists do not feel they are real at all, except as an artificial taxonomical construction (cf. ideal gas).

 

[Pinball1970]

artificial taxonomical construction.

That is exactly what it is, as animals have certain characteristics and similarities so we categorise them according to those morphologies. We can study them and expect results based on that.
In the light of evolution this makes perfect sense so Linnaeus was on the right track only those things he pigeon holed were not created, they evolved.

 

[axocanth]

That is exactly what it is, as animals have certain characteristics and similarities so we categorise them according to those morphologies. We can study them and expect results based on that.

Well, categorizing on the basis of morphology is one way to do your taxonomy. This school is known as phenetics, and, last I heard, it was almost as dead as William Wallace. The dominant school nowadays -- cladistics -- does not group according to morphology (though they use morphology as evidence for their classifications).

But back on point, if you feel higher taxa such as ape, say, are nothing more than artificial human constructions -- as many scientists do -- then the statement "Humans are apes" is surely nothing more than a fact of human construction. Right? It's not a fact of nature itself.

And even this much can be disputed. Not all scientists think humans should even be classified as apes, let alone that we really are apes.

 

[Pinball1970]

And even this much can be disputed. Not all scientists think humans should even be classified as apes, let alone that we really are apes

How should we be classified? To students of Biology?

 

[axocanth]

How should we be classified? To students of Biology?

First of all, I'm not objecting to humans being classified as apes, or even rejecting the fact of nature -- if it is indeed such -- that we are apes. Unlike certain religious people who object for obvious reasons, I really couldn't care less. It's simply the intrinsic fascination of the subject that attracts me.

I would say this, though. Nowadays it is routinely asserted that we are not only descended from apes, or primitive apelike creatures, which is not particularly controversial (among mainstream science at least), but that we are apes. It's asserted from the highest levels, repeated at the lowest levels (e.g. you . Joking!!) and evidently never questioned. It's another one of these mantras or dogmas that no one ever stops to critically assess. It's asserted with the same Dawkins-like ex cathedra authority as if you'd have to be plain bonkers to challenge!


Addressing the question of pure taxonomy first (I'm ignoring the school of phenetics):

Cladistics: It does indeed follow -- as a matter of methodological necessity -- that if we are descended from apes then we are apes. Cladistics is currently the dominant school, and perhaps sometimes erroneously understood to be the only way of doing taxonomy. It most certainly is not! Rival schools include evolutionary taxonomy and phenetics.

Evolutionary Taxonomy: It does not necessarily follow from the methodological strictures of this school that if we are descended from apes that we are apes. Unlike cladistics, when the facts of phylogeny are in, a judgement call remains to be made. If it is deemed that birds, for example, have diverged so far from their dinosaur ancestors that lumping them together results in a misleading taxonomy, the ET is at liberty to -- and they do -- assign birds a separate taxon of a higher rank. In such an event, birds are not dinosaurs. Cladists do not have this option: phylogeny determines taxonomy.

In the parallel case of humans and apes, if it is judged that we have diverged far enough from our King-Kong ancestors, the ET may choose to assign humans a separate category of a higher rank, precisely how high in the hierarchy is left open. Ridiculous?

The Ranking of Taxa

Once species have been grouped into taxa the next step in the process of biological classification is the construction of a hierarchy of these taxa, the so-called Linnaean hierarchy. The hierarchy is constructed by assigning a definite rank such as family or order to each taxon, subordinating the lower categories to the higher ones. It is a basic weakness of cladistics that it lacks a sensitive method of of ranking and simply gives a new rank after each branching point. The evolutionary taxonomist, following Darwin, ranks taxa by the degree of divergence from the common ancestor, often assigning a different rank to sister groups. Rank determination is one of the most difficult and subjective decision processes in classification. One aspect of evolution that causes difficulties is mosaic evolution. Rates of divergence of different characters are often drastically different. Conventionally taxa, such as those of vertebrates, are described and delimited on the basis of external morphology and of the skeleton, particularly the locomotory system. When other sets of morphological characters are used (for example, sense organs, reproductive system, central nervous system, or chromosomes), the evidence they provide is sometimes conflicting. The situation can become worse, if molecular characters are also used. The anthropoid genus Pan (chimpanzee), for instance, is very similar to Homo in molecular characters, but man differs so much from the anthropoid apes in traditional characters (central nervous system and its capacities) and occupation of a highly distinct adaptive zone that Julian Huxley even proposed to raise him to the rank of a separate kingdom -- Psychozoa.

- Ernst Mayr, essay "Biological Classification: Toward a Synthesis of Opposing Methodologies"

Ranking

Rank in the Linnaean hierarchy is indicated by the category in which a given taxon is placed. Rank determination is one of the most difficult and arbitrary decision processes in classification. For the cladist, rank is automatically given by the nearest branching point of the phylogenetic tree, since sister taxa must have the same rank. The evolutionary taxonomist, by contrast, must decide what number and weight of autapomorphous characters justify a difference in rank between two sister groups; such a decision becomes particularly difficult when the evidence from different kinds of characters is conflicting. A molecular taxonomist, for instance, might place Pan (chimpanzee) and Homo in the same family, owing to the similarity of their macromolecules, while Julian Huxley proposed to raise man to the rank of a separate kingdom (Psychozoa), owing to the unique characteristics of man with respect to his central nervous system and its capacities. There are no firm rules as to how to resolve such conflicts, except to say that one should look for overall balance in the system, and adopt a scale of ranking that will permit the most useful generalizations.

- Ernst Mayr, "The Growth of Biological Thought", pp239-240



The evolutionary taxonomist, then, objects to many of the results of the cladists -- probably the only results you ever hear! While admitting the very same facts of evolutionary history as the cladists, he may conclude to the contrary that humans do not belong with the apes -- we've come too far -- or even that we do not belong with the animals at all !! (Huxley).




But now the heavy-duty question: Even supposing it is an undisputed fact of taxonomy that humans are apes, does it follow that this is a fact of the world?

We are now in very deep metaphysical waters indeed! At the very least, the entities in question (i.e. both species and whatever higher taxon you think we belong to) would have to be real. As we've seen, however, many scientists do not even think species is a "natural kind", something that exists in nature itself. That is, they do not think species are real.

If you think that's bad, wait till you hear what they say about the higher taxa!

And, needless to say, there are no facts about things that are not real.

 

[axocanth]

"For it is often, perhaps even always, possible to adhere to a general theoretical foundation by securing the adaptation of the theory to the facts by means of artificial additional assumptions"

- Albert Einstein

What the hell does that mean Albert? For all his smarts he does not half put a lot of noise into his thoughts.

HE knows what he means, no one else does.

If what I said earlier isn't clear, think epicycles! I assume you're familiar with the development of Ptolemaic cosmology. In any situation where a cherished theory seems to be at odds with the observable facts, you can always just add a few more epicycles to make it fit those facts.

Moral: (Typical) theories cannot be definitively falsified (and are typically clung to until something scientists like better comes along).


Think dear old Albert is immune to this kind of scurrilous ad hoc tweaking or "artificial assumptions" himself? Think cosmological constant!

 

[axocanth]

How should we be classified? To students of Biology?

Well, a bit more from Ernst Mayr first, and the school of evolutionary taxonomy which he represented . . .

The main difference between cladists and evolutionary taxonomists, thus, is in the treatment of autapomorph characters. Instead of automatically giving sister groups the same rank, the evolutionary taxonomist ranks them by considering the relative weight of their autapomorphies (figure 14.1). For instance, one of the striking autapomorphies of man (in comparison to his sister group, the chimpanzee) is the possession of Broca's center in the brain, a character that is closely correlated with man's speaking ability. This single character is for most taxonomists of greater weight than various synapomorphous similarities or even identities in man and the apes in certain macromolecules such as hemoglobins cytochrome c. The particular importance in autapomorphies is that they reflect the occupation of new niches and new adaptive zones that may have greater biological significance than synapomorphies in some of the standard macromolecules.

- Ernst Mayr, essay "Biological Classification: Toward a Synthesis of Opposing Methodologies" (found in "Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology", 2nd ed., pp 286-287)



So what? So we are similar to the apes in many ways, Indeed, listening to the overzealous defenders of science arguing against their Creationist foes one might be forgiven for thinking they believe we are so similar that you could get a chimpanzee to fill in for you while you go surfing at the beach and the boss would never smell a rat!

We're also very different from the apes, however, and it's quite amazing -- in some places at least, such is the degree of indoctrination -- that these differences even need to be pointed out at all.


Now, the cladist, as I've noted above, has no choice in the matter: if we are descended from apes -- no matter how different -- then we are apes. And that's that!

The evolutionary taxonomist, by contrast, while conceding the very same similarities and the very same facts of evolutionary descent, also takes into the consideration the differences (i.e. autapomorphies) between ourselves and the apes. The similarities and differences are weighted, and if deemed appropriate -- i.e. conducive to a more sensible and a more scientific taxonomy -- he may assign ourselves a rank at whichever level in the hierarchy he sees fit. In such an event, we are still descended from apes, of course, but, inasmuch as we have diverged so far from our hairy, dimwitted, and linguistically-challenged brethren, just as birds are not dinosaurs, we are not apes.


What should we teach students of biology, you ask? Perhaps a balanced treatment of the rival taxonomic schools. Regardless of the brute facts of evolution, we are by no means compelled to the conclusion that humans are apes.

Maybe this is done already. I've no idea. Ask your mates in the boozer!

 

[James R]

If you wish to leave this forum, you're obviously free to leave any time you like. If you feel that you won't be able to resist the temptation to come back later, then (a) you can try to resist the temptation, while leaving your account active, or (b) you can ask me to permanently ban your account. Please let me know if you intend to leave and you want to select option (b). I will need a clear statement from you that you are requesting a permanent ban, if that's what you want.
....

See above. If you are requesting a permanent ban, I need you to clearly state that this is what you want.

Yes, pull the plug.

As you wish.

Moderator note: at his own request, axocanth has been permanently banned from sciforums.

 

[James R]

Although axocanth is no longer with us, I would like to correct a few factual errors he made above, with reference to me, for the record.

Now, once again James, especially, tries very hard to project this "anti-science" label upon myself -- something I reject -- in order to add credibility to his own character slurs against me.

I don't believe I accused axocanth at any time of being "anti-science". I certainly referred to his "anti-scientific method" crusade, by which I mean his insistence that "there is no scientific method". I invite anybody who is interested to review the threads that axocanth started, to judge for yourself whether or not axocanth is against the notion that there is a scientific method.

axocanth also argued that the theory of evolution is empty and circular, then later that certain mainstream ideas in the modern theory of evolution are wrong or misguided (because axocanth is of the opinion that the Gould/Eldrege notion of punctuated equilibrium somehow breaks the modern synthesis). These arguments are not so much anti-science, in my opinion, as poorly informed. Maybe axocanth means well, but it wouldn't hurt him to get himself up to date with this stuff - perhaps read something written on the topics after 1990.

The "belligerence" (see James' recent posts again), then, if there can be any to speak of at all, lies in the expression of views which certain other members have simply failed to do their homework on.

It certainly sounds like somebody has a problem with humility here. Any of us can be wrong in our views. Not all of us are open to acknowledging such a possibility, however.

Moreover, one should be careful of being too precious about a certain set of opinions, just because they happen to be your own. It's okay to talk things out. It's okay to agree to disagree. It's even okay to be wrong about some things. Getting angry when one's views are challenged is often a dead end. We learn and grow when we realise we're in error and are willing to make changes so as not to remain that way.

James continues to condescend, as if he's dealing with some naughty, truculent, fib-telling schoolchild who, in his boundless magnanimity, will allow to stay if I just clean up my act, if I just play nice.

For the record, in his time here, axocanth received exactly zero official warnings for any kind of "naughtiness".

I am as entitled to express my opinion that axocanth was belligerent as he was to express his opinion that I am condescending and such. He certainly didn't hold back in telling me exactly what he thought of me, as he did in the post I'm quoting from.

 

[James R]

BTW, most of the axocanth-related stuff here is completely off-topic in Magical Realist's complaint thread. I will most likely move the off-topic stuff to a more appropriate thread/subforum later on, when I have more time. Quite a bit of additional housekeeping is also on the list to try to put all of axocanth's evolution stuff in a thread dedicated to that topic, all of his "no scientific method" in a thread dedicated to that topic, all of his "I hate the Scientific thought-police 'Red Guards'" into a thread dedicated to that, and so on. axocanth seemed to want to bring all of these topics into every thread he posted to, which mostly made for a hard-to-follow and hard-to-manage mess.