[Taxacom] New classification of Hominidae (incl. the "hobbit")
John Grehan
jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Fri May 1 09:00:55 CDT 2009
Sure - pertinent point. If science is what you believe, then belief is
science. If science is not about what you believe then belief is not
science. I take that view that science is the discovery of what you do
not know (otherwise there would be no point) and in that context there
is no belief in the sense that you cannot hold a belief about what you
do not already know.
I'm sure I will fall into some bear traps on that.
John
Dr. John R. Grehan
Director of Science
Buffalo Museum of Science1020 Humboldt Parkway
Buffalo, NY 14211-1193
email: jgrehan at sciencebuff.org
Phone: (716) 896-5200 ext 372
Panbiogeography
http://www.sciencebuff.org/biogeography_and_evolutionary_biology.php
Ghost moth research
http://www.sciencebuff.org/systematics_and_evolution_of_hepialdiae.php
Human evolution and the great apes
http://www.sciencebuff.org/human_origin_and_the_great_apes.php
________________________________
From: John Landolt [mailto:JLANDOLT at shepherd.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 9:54 AM
To: John Grehan
Cc: Dick Jensen; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New classification of Hominidae (incl. the
"hobbit")
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
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list