[Taxacom] New classification of Hominidae (incl. the "hobbit")

Fri May 1 08:54:19 CDT 2009

Gentlemen,

Perhaps the next question to ask in this discussion is one to  
designed illuminate the definition of "science" (at the risk of  
pettifoggery) ;-)

Cheers,

John
John Landolt
Shepherd University

On May 1, 2009, at 9:28 AM, John Grehan wrote:

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dick Jensen [mailto:rjensen at saintmarys.edu]
>> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 9:25 AM
>> To: John Grehan
>> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New classification of Hominidae (incl. the
>> "hobbit")
>>
>> John Grehan wrote:
>>
>> "What people believe is not science."
>>
>> I guess that depends on what we mean by "believe", doesn't it?
>
> Not in my opinion.
>
> I
>> "believe" that our modern theory of evolution is a powerful  
>> explanatory
>> device that is consistent with the evidence and is better than other
>> attempts to explain that evidence (e.g., Intelligent Design).
>
> Sure, I believe that too. But my belief is just my belief. Not science
>
>  Of course,
>> some use the word "believe" as synonymous with "acceptance of  
>> something
>> based on personal or emotional perspectives, rather than objectively
>> determined evidence."  If the latter is what John means, then I  
>> agree -
>> it's not science.  But, we must clarify our usage of words when we  
>> make
>> absolute statements.
>
> My view is different, belief is what you believe based on whatever  
> influences you. If 'objectively determined evidence' is the basis  
> of belief then its still belief. Even the 'objectively determined  
> evidence' is neither here nor there as different people, including  
> scientists, may believe different things about the same evidence.
>
> Just my belief.
>
> John Grehan
>
>>
>> Dick J
>>
>> Richard Jensen, Professor
>> Department of Biology
>> Saint Mary's College
>> Notre Dame, IN 46556
>>
>> tel: 574-284-4674
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: John Grehan <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Sent: Fri, 1 May 2009 08:40:11 -0400 (EDT)
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New classification of Hominidae (incl. the
>> "hobbit")
>>
>> And of course I would agree that Ken should not back down just  
>> because
>> someone (in this case myself) disagrees with the informativeness  
>> of his
>> classification - just as I would not back down on the orangutan  
>> evidence
>> just because just about no one in the primate systematics field else
>> accepts it.
>>
>> While my characterization of 'worthless' may be harsh (and no more  
>> harsh
>> than the worthlessness of the orangutan theory condemned in the  
>> hominid
>> origins field) I at least gave the basis for my characterization,  
>> and I
>> stand by the view that a classification that lacks presentation of  
>> the
>> systematics decision making process that leads to particular
>> classification decisions is not of any real evaluative value. If  
>> others
>> think otherwise on this list then I would be interested to hear.
>>
>> Ken makes the point that the orangutan theory is accepted by very few
>> biologists is neither here nor there for the science of  
>> classification.
>> What people believe is not science.
>>
>> John Grehan
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
>>> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 9:33 PM
>>> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>> Subject: [Taxacom] New classification of Hominidae (incl. the  
>>> "hobbit")
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>      I was asked to forward the post below to the list.  I thank  
>>> Mark
>>> for his response, and my own response to it is that I indeed do not
>>> intend to back down.  I gave two perfectly good reasons for
>>> preliminarily assigning the "hobbit" (florensis) to early Homo  
>>> erectus
>>> (sensu lato), and near georgicus in particular, and John Grehan  
>>> offered
>>> neither a credible rebuttal to those reasons, nor any attempt to  
>>> justify
>>> any alternate assignment.
>>>      Nor will I back down on the assignment of Kenyanthropus  
>>> platyops to
>>> Australopithecus (and I suspect it will indeed prove to be a  
>>> synonym of
>>> A. afarensis).  As for the proposed outgroups to Hominidae,  
>>> Ardipithecus
>>> and Orrorin seem excellent candidates, although whether they clade
>>> together or separately remains to be seen.  Sahelanthropus is less
>>> certain and may end up clading with gorillas and/or chimps.  John
>>> Grehan's hypothesis of orangutans as an alternate outgroup to  
>>> hominids,
>>> on the other hand, is obviously still accepted by very few  
>>> biologists.
>>>        --------Ken Kinman
>>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>> Ken,
>>>      For some reason the listserve rejected my posting. Please  
>>> forward
>>> it on my behalf.
>>> -Mark
>>> ------- Forwarded message follows -------
>>> From:  <farmer at cellmate.cb.uga.edu>
>>> Subject:  Re: [Taxacom] New classification of Hominidae (incl. the
>>> "hobbit")
>>> Date sent: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:32:14 -0400
>>> Dear Ken,
>>> I have never posted to this group before and my expertise is in  
>>> protists
>>> (a long way from hominids) BUT I think that science only  
>>> progresses by
>>> individuals putting forward new ideas and offering data in  
>>> support of
>>> them (as opposed to creationist BS of "new ideas").
>>>
>>> Ken, I am way out my area of comfort zone here but I think for  
>>> the good
>>> of science you should not back down, UNLESS the data compels you  
>>> to do
>>> so. I myself have abandoned my long held ideas about mitochondrial
>>> origins in the earliest eukaryotes, but it was the data and reasoned
>>> arguments that caused me to do so. That is the ESSENCE of good  
>>> science.
>>> -Mark Farmer
>>> On 30 Apr 2009 at 16:59, Kenneth Kinman wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>>        Well, if everyone agrees with John Grehan that my
>>> classifications are "pretty worthless", then maybe I should just  
>>> stop.
>>> But I wouldn't post them if I didn't believe they would provide a  
>>> useful
>>> new viewpoint (at least for some workers) compared to other  
>>> available
>>> classifications.
>>> ------- End of forwarded message -------
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>>
>>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with  
>>> either of
>>> these methods:
>>>
>>> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>>
>>> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
>>> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
>> these methods:
>>
>> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
>> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either  
> of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/ 
> pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here