[Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications
Ashley Nicholas
Nicholasa at ukzn.ac.za
Mon Oct 7 10:15:36 CDT 2013
Richard you make some good points -- but I don't know if I am sold on the subjective pathway you suggest. To me magnetism is real (it can be observed and experimented with and therefore not semi-real). I have racked my brains to think of something that is semi-real. We certainly have speculations on things e.g. multiverses. I do not discount these but I do realise they are speculations (maybe good speculations and certainly highly fascinating speculations) to explain some of the things we are seeing and measuring. But I still treat them as speculation. The point of empirical sciences is that it is self-policing in that it can be repeated by anybody and shown to give repeatable and consistent results. Does the Sasquatch pass this test? Is there a type in a museum I can consult for myself?
Hypatia almost 2000 years ago said (and I paraphrase) "it is a terrible thing to teach superstition as the truth." and even Newton in his Principia refused to speculate on how gravity (“action-at-a-distance”) actually works. Despite this Newton practised alchemy -- but he did have the sense to see that he should not to mix empirical science with his personal beliefs. I think most of us live in this duality but also realise that believing (in whatever) does not make it a fact; be it Sasquatch or in our part of the world a Tikoloshe.
To some extent empirical science is an ideal -- but one that has reaped great benefits for humans. Yes there are many things out there we do not understand and can not yet explain -- but hopefully we will in time produce the machines and instruments we need to extend our ability to collect data (not facts).
I also use the term "facts' but do so uneasily as this suggest "the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth". However, there is evidence that our universe is not only relative but also interactive and so ambivalent. You can ask light if it is a wav or a particle and it will tell you what you want to hear based on your experiment. As a result, like Popper and many before I believe all knowledge to be to some extent uncertain. I have no problem living in an uncertain universe, although I know human nature (for survival purposes) opts for certainty.
Thanks for an interesting debate.
Ashley
________________________________________
From: Richard Zander [Richard.Zander at mobot.org]
Sent: 05 October 2013 20:18
To: Ashley Nicholas; Fred Schueler
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications
For many people sasquatch exists. They spend money mounting expeditions
to find him/her. They act on their belief.
Empirical data is facts. Facts are well-documented observations. Some
figure the sasquatch is well-documented and thus a fact. I think there
is a scientific name for him or her.
The only fact a scientist should accept absolutely is the chair he/she
is sitting in and the certainty of death and taxes. Anything else not in
the room with him/her needs to be dealt with in varying degrees of
credibility or dubiety. Concepts and hypotheses are quite as real as the
sasquatch when you act on them. Fields like magnetism can be measured
and described with equations but nobody knows what magnetism actually
is. Us scientists deal with lots of semi-real things quite effectively.
Empiricism/positivism is not dead, no, but an ideal. A real one.
____________________________
Richard H. Zander
Missouri Botanical Garden, PO Box 299, St. Louis, MO 63166-0299 USA
Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/ and
http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
Framework: http://tinyurl.com/ltd66dw
UPS and FedExpr - MBG, 4344 Shaw Blvd, St. Louis 63110 USA
-----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Ashley Nicholas
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2013 1:05 PM
To: Fred Schueler
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications
I disagree with this what is being said here. Only
objects/forces/phenomena that can be experimented on or objectively
observed really exist. Anything we abstract fro this through the
collection of data/information is a concept or a hypothesis and not
real. A flash about the benzene ring must have come from empirically
collected data. Taxonomy cannot be exempt from this process if it is
then it is not empirical science it is guessing!
Ashley
________________________________________
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
[taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] on behalf of Fred Schueler
[bckcdb at istar.ca]
Sent: 05 October 2013 03:48
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Biodiversity questions: Classifications
On 10/4/2013 10:26 AM, Dan Lahr wrote:
> Ha, I was not aware that he acknowledged that.
* well, not in those words - but he certainly acknowledged that a
falsifiable hypothesis could come from anywhere - and "anywhere"
includes baconian induction. In a sense, any hypothesis arises as an
idea about existing data, whether it comes as a flash about a benzene
ring, or only after poring over decades of correlation between weather
data and road-crossing dates.
fred.
===============================================
>
> So it is in fact the wide *perception* of popperian science that
defines
> science as only the last part of that sentence, not Popper himself...
>
> thanks for pointing it out FRed.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Fred Schueler <bckcdb at istar.ca
> <mailto:bckcdb at istar.ca>> wrote:
>
> On 10/4/2013 9:00 AM, Dan Lahr wrote:
>
> > Incidently, I tend think that applying the popperian definition
> of science
> > to taxonomy, as you have indicated, is a bit of trying to fit a
> square peg
> > in a round hole. Popper's definition is too restrictive:
exploratory
> > science is also part of science! HOw would we come to
hypothesis
> if we
> > don't know what objects can be hypothesizable subjects?
>
> * an interesting point - the popperian hypothesis is that "it will
be
> only through exploratory data collection and baconian induction
that it
> will be possible to form a falsifiable hypothesis about this
subject."
> In my experience, this hypothesis is often corroborated.
>
> fred.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
> Bishops Mills Natural History Centre -
http://pinicola.ca/bmnhc.htm
> Mudpuppy Night in Oxford Mills - http://pinicola.ca/mudpup1.htm
> Daily Paintings - http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.com/
> RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
> on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
> (613)258-3107 <tel:%28613%29258-3107> <bckcdb at istar.ca
> <http://istar.ca>> http://pinicola.ca/
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu <mailto:Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> <http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom> your search terms
here
>
> Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ___________________
> Daniel J. G. Lahr, PhD
> Assist. Prof., Dept of Zoology,
> Univ. of Sao Paulo, Brazil
> + 55 (11) 3091 0948
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
Bishops Mills Natural History Centre - http://pinicola.ca/bmnhc.htm
Mudpuppy Night in Oxford Mills - http://pinicola.ca/mudpup1.htm
Daily Paintings - http://karstaddailypaintings.blogspot.com/
RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
(613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
methods:
(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
(2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
_______________________________________________
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched with either of these
methods:
(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
(2) a Google search specified as:
site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
Celebrating 26 years of Taxacom in 2013.
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list