[Taxacom] [Biogeography Portal] Re: Seed plants of Fiji

[John Grehan]

Richard Jensen wrote:
> 
> OK, John.  Here's an example of why definitions are important.  You
state
> below that "Correlations between distributions and particular
> geomorphological features may lead to predictions that do not
correspond
> with consensus views about geohistory."  First, what do you mean by
> correlations?  Are you using the word as a synonym of association or
as a
> mathematically defined parameter (Pearson, Spearman?).  Second, what
do
> you mean by consensus?  Are you using consensus as in unanimity or as
in
> agreement by most.

I said that definitions don't matter in the sense that they are not the
key, of themselves, to solving scientific problems. There may or may not
be agreement about particular definitions. Coming to an agreement may or
may not resolve different perspectives. So I can clarify a meaning where
it is uncertain to others, but whether that necessarily makes any
difference is another matter.

On the above question - correlation as an association, and consensus as
agreement by most (although I would also use the term for unanimity
where applicable).

> Clearly, my interpretation of what you have said may change as a
function
> of the definitions used for these words.  There is nothing in the
context
> of your statement that allows me to determine which definitions of
these
> words you are using.

Sure, but that is true of just about anything anyone writes on list
servers.

John Grehan


> 
> Dick J
> 
> 
> Richard Jensen
> Department of Biology
> Saint Mary's College
> Notre Dame, IN 46556
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
> Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:20 am
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Seed plants of Fiji
> 
> > Michael Ivie is quite correct in noting that nothing is "totally"
> > independent in science. However, that was not my intention and I am
> > sorry that he was not sufficiently familiar with panbiogeography
> > to know
> > that. The independence of panbiogeography stems from the methods and
> > principles that are specific to the research program. Those
> > methods and
> > principles involve spatial analysis of geographic relationships in
> > termsof tracks, nodes, baselines, and main massings, and geological
> > correlation. These are all conceptual tools specific to
> > panbiogeography- although various researchers have used one or
> > more of these techniques
> > both before and after panbiogeography was formalized.
> >
> > The significance of the methodological independence may be seen
> > with the
> > synthesis of geology and biogeography. Most studies approach
> > geology in
> > terms of accepting a particular geohistorical narrative and then
> > constructing the biogeographic narrative based on various
assumptions
> > about centers of origin, dispersal ability, and age of the taxon. In
> > panbiogeography one must first identify the spatial
> > characteristics of
> > individual and multiple distributions in terms of their track, node,
> > baseline, and main massing geography. These characteristics
> > provide a
> > way of predicting the probable geographic sector involved, and
> > from that
> > one can associate the relevant geological context in terms of
> > correlating geological patterns with the biogeographic pattern. The
> > correlation or lack thereof can provide a purely biogeographic
> > basis by
> > which to predict to what extent a theorized geological history may
or
> > may not be involved with the evolution of that distribution.
> > Correlations between distributions and particular geomorphological
> > features may lead to predictions that do not correspond with
consensus
> > views about geohistory, or they may correspond only to some
> > geohistorical narratives (either the majority view or one or more
> > minority views). Craw (1987) gives a good illustration with
> > respect to
> > the Chatham Islands, showing how there were two entirely
contradictory
> > geohistorical theories and that both could be supported by the
tracks
> > through a different geohistorical context. But the geomorphological
> > correlation itself rests on the geological context given to those
> > features so the application of the method itself is influenced by
> > background knowledge in geology as it may also be influenced by
> > systematic theory. The process is known as reciprocal illumination.
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> > > bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Michael A. Ivie
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 5:13 PM
> > > To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Seed plants of Fiji
> > >
> > > I have been following this, but finally have the piece of info
> > neededto
> > > understand:
> > >
> > > John Grehan wrote:
> > >
> > > > They neither help nor hinder if one accepts that biogeography
> > > >
> > > >constitutes an independent research program with its own
> > methods and
> > > >principles. That is true of panbiogeography, but it may not be
true
> > of
> > > >all other methods. There are geologists who have suggested such
> > > >structures as I have talked about, but you wont see them by just
> > looking
> > > >at a map of the Pacific.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > If something is totally independent of everything else, and relies
> > only
> > > on internal logic, not on consistency with other sources of
> > information,
> > > it is called RELIGION,  which is consistent with
> > "Panbiogeograpy," the
> > > holy scripture of which is Croizat's wonderfully ambiguous and
> > totally> unreadable (except by the faithful) books of the same
title.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom mailing list
> > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom mailing list
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >