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

[John Grehan]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
")
> 
> Something strange here. What happened to an objective measure of
> success? 

Went out the window years ago.


Two groups can believe different things about a topic, but
> surely one can decide from more evidence and a decent theory that one
> belief is better than another, and might be a good candidate for
> consensus?

Surely one might think so, but experience says otherwise.
Panbiogeography, for example, made successful novel predictions about
geology (that was only later corroborated through geological discovery).
By any objective measure panbiogeography was more successful than the
Darwinian theory. Did it make any difference? Of course not. As someone
said on TAXACOM, it's all meaningless coincidence (actual wording was
stronger). Another example -  In the late 1980's it was shown that a
proposed multimillion dollar project to create a hierarchical system of
areas for New Zealand conservation was phylogenetically and
biogeographically nonsense and that panbiogeography could achieve the
same goals for a comparative pittance. Did it make any difference? Of
course not. Scientists believe what they want to believe (myself
included - of course).

John Grehan

> One can falsify one belief, and that doesn't make the other true, not
> even in the scientific sense that science is never perfectly sure
about
> either its "facts" (well-documented observations) or accepted
theories.
> One can demonstrate multiple instances of something being true but
never
> assure that there is not one instance in which it is not tree ("all
> crows are black"). But that's what theories are for, dealing with
> inference.
> 
> Belief that guides action is the key to this argument, I think. Any
> other belief is rather weak.
> 
> *****************************
> Richard H. Zander
> Voice: 314-577-0276
> Missouri Botanical Garden
> PO Box 299
> St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
> richard.zander at mobot.org
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
> and http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> Non-post deliveries to:
> Missouri Botanical Garden, 4344 Shaw Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63110
> *****************************
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Croft
> Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 10:01 PM
> To: rjensen at saintmarys.edu
> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New classification of Hominidae (incl. the
> "hobbit")
> 
> 'Conviction' , like 'belief', is probably too emotionally charged to
> be useful in science, and hence Taxacom, the pinnacle of such
> endeavour.  But this is what discussions like these are all about -
> righteousness in the face of insurmountable indifference, if not
> opposition.
> 
> 'Opinion'. like 'evidence' and 'consequence', on the other hand is
> perhaps a little more neutral, a little more flat.  But even the
> descriptor 'opinionated' comes with its baggage.
> 
> Bringing this all back to Taxacom, I believe with some conviction that
> such beliefs and convictions do not belong here</irony>. Belief and
> conviction is what God created blogs for...  :)
> 
> jim
> 
> "I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice than this: the
> intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing
> over whether it is true or not." - Peter Medawar
> 
> but perhaps the more poetic:
> 
> "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd."   -
> Voltaire
> 
> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Richard Jensen
<rjensen at saintmarys.edu>
> wrote:
> > This is what I meant. We must clarify our intention when using words
> > that have several meanings. "Belief" is such a word. It can be used
to
> > represent acceptance via unreasoned faith (or even reasoned faith),
or
> > it can be used as synonymous with (see Webster's New Collegiate
> > dictionary) ""conviction of the truth of some statement or the
reality
> > of some being or phenomenon, esp. when based on the examination of
> > evidence." Whether the belief qualifies as science or not is another
> > matter. When I, as a scientist, say I believe in evolution, I am
using
> > the latter definition coupled with a scientific evaluation of the
> evidence.
> >
> > Dick J
> >
> > Richard Jensen, Professor
> > Department of Biology
> > Saint Mary's College
> > Notre Dame, IN 46556
> > Tel: 574-284-4674
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> 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