[Taxacom] Fwd: Is the Company "YourSpecies" in Barcelona for real or ahoax?

Fri Oct 25 09:32:59 CDT 2013

I agree that lawyers and scientists are not synonymous as each work in a
different context. But the matter of 'truth' may sometimes be just as
sticky in science as in law. What is scientific truth for one scientist may
not be the same as for another scientist. Some philosophers of science have
apparently argued that scientist's view of what is truth is also embedded
within social constructs. It may be that in a case with "solid evidence and
good will, a lawyer will approach the scientist's stand" as may a scientist
approach a lawyer's. Whether a "good taxonomist" (I note the caveat of
"good" is eons beyond any lawyer depends on what one means by a being a
good taxonomist that precludes qualities that a good lawyer may bring to
bear on an argument (and all taxonomy is founded on arguments that may be
good, bad, or incomplete.

John Grehan

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Cristian Ruiz Altaba <
cruizaltaba at dgcc.caib.es> wrote:

> Partially true. I do agree with the essence of your argument.
>
> However, a good lawyer works only in part as a good scientist. A lawyer's
> quest is not for scientific truth (i.e., truth beyond human subjective
> experience). Instead, lawyers seek court truth, which is pure social
> construct implicitly assuming that the truth may not be fully known. In
> case there is solid evidence and good will, a lawyer will approach the
> scientist's stand. A good taxonomist is eons beyond any lawyer.
>
> Just to highlight the dangers of legal-thinking intrusion (and definitely
> NOT in your line), a remarkably stupid paper comes in hand:
>  http://www.raco.cat/index.php/ABC/article/view/214978/285495
> The confusion between scientific and legal proof is blatant, adding on an
> exceedingly poor literature survey... yielding in the end the silly notion
> that one can search for ecological causes using the "methods" of a US jury.
> Gimme a break!
>
> All the best,
>
> Cristian
>
> -----John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> escribió: -----
>  Para: Cristian Ruiz Altaba <cruizaltaba at dgcc.caib.es>
> De: John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com>
> Fecha: 24/10/2013 18:13
> cc: taxacom <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Asunto: Re: [Taxacom] Fwd: Is the Company "YourSpecies" in Barcelona for
> real or ahoax?
>
> But what you say regarding legal truth is applicable to science. The
> nature of e vidence in science is contingent upon the argument within
> which it is embedded. The idea of something being "beyond reasonable doubt"
> is just as applicable to science as a court of law. In some respects
> lawyers (at least good ones) have to be better scientists than many
> scientists, especially where scientists can be protected from having
> to confront contradictions by just ignoring them whereas the lawyer will
> have to directly confront the objections or counter argument of the
> opponent. A case in point with the field of human origins - in the 1999
> orangutan paper I and Schwartz made a detailed character by character
> rebuttal of evidence claimed in support of the chimpanzee relationship. A
> recent paper by Begun responded by reiterating the same evidence as if
> there were nothing presented to the contrary. This is neither good nor bad.
> Its just the way science works.
>
>  John Grehan
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Cristian Ruiz Altaba <
> cruizaltaba at dgcc.caib.es > wrote:
>
>>  However, scientific truth is based on all evidence and always testable
>> --legal truth is something "beyond reasonable doubt"; i.e., something more
>> practical devised to settle matters for good. Conservation has suffered
>> from confusing both kinds of "truth". Now taxonomy?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Cristian R. Altaba
>>
>> *  *
>> ----- taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu escribió: -----
>>  Para: taxacom < taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
>> De: John Grehan **
>> Enviado por: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Fecha: 24/10/2013 14:17
>> Asunto: [Taxacom] Fwd: Is the Company "YourSpecies" in Barcelona for real
>> or ahoax?
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Ashley Nicholas < Nicholasa at ukzn.ac.za>
>> Date: Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:13 PM
>> Subject: RE: [Taxacom] Is the Company "YourSpecies" in Barcelona for real
>> or ahoax?
>> To: John Grehan < calabar.john at gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>  Absolutely, human origins taxonomy is a highly politicized arena -- as
>> you
>> have experienced yourself. While we on this what do you make of the Broken
>> Hill skull? I have heard people beginning to say it might be a Neanderthal
>> precursor? It also happens in smaller less significant arenas of plant
>> taxonomy where some taxonomists act god by supressing hypotheses. They
>> have
>> become political and abandoned process demanded by true empirical science.
>> As you say it even permeates into other aspects of human thinking such as
>> scientific hypotheses being given religious status. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* John Grehan [ mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com<calabar.john at gmail.com>]
>> *Sent:* 23 October 2013 18:02
>>
>> *To:* Ashley Nicholas
>> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Is the Company "YourSpecies" in Barcelona for
>> real
>> or ahoax?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> If one ever wanted a classic example of a 'politicized' taxonomy one only
>> has to look at the human origins question.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Many scientists do look for certainty in science and are highly offended
>> by
>> the idea that such certainty may be questioned. It gets worse when such
>> scientists look to science (especially evolutionary science) as a
>> substitute for religious faith (i.e. the science becomes the substitute
>> religion and so becomes an unquestionable authority for their existential
>> views).****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> John Grehan****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Ashley Nicholas < Nicholasa at ukzn.ac.za>
>> wrote:****
>>
>>  I agree. As they say in a divorce there is her story, his story and then
>> there is the truth. All knowledge is uncertain. In such an uncertain
>> universe. I think empirical science is the best tool we have to hand --
>> since we will never really know the truth. I don't deal with the truth as
>> I
>> don't know what it is and I question that a empirical scientist is a
>> scientist if they think they do. I accept all hypotheses although some
>> appeal to my logical and rational faculties more. I never treat any of
>> them
>> as the truth no matter how strong the evidence "seems" to be. Things are
>> not always what they seem to be. I enjoy living in such and uncertain
>> universe, although I can accept (but not like) that my species in general
>> likes the irrationality of certainty. That is why I don't like the
>> rejection of any empirical hypothesis (i.e. retestable hypotheses) by
>> journals. When journals reach that point of rejecting such hypotheses they
>> move from science into politics. Sadly this is what has happened to much
>> of
>> taxonomy it is now in the arena of politics and not empirical science.
>> Which leads to all kinds of problems. ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> I enjoy your analogy to a court of law. In haste****
>>
>> Ashley Nicholas****
>>
>>  ****
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* John Grehan [ calabar.john at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* 23 October 2013 15:45
>> *To:* Ashley Nicholas****
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] Is the Company "YourSpecies" in Barcelona for
>> real
>> or ahoax?****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> A species hypothesis is based on a set of rhetoric presented by a
>> scientist
>> (lawyer, bush lawyer etc) that invokes various criteria (evidence) in
>> support of that argument. Testing is essentially how others (the jury)
>> perceive the effectiveness of the argument against subsequent experience -
>> either of the argument itself or the evidence provided. The judge is out
>> to
>> lunch. ****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> John Grehan****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Ashley Nicholas < Nicholasa at ukzn.ac.za>
>> wrote:****
>>
>> I don't disagree with anything that has been said below. I require my
>> postgrad students and myself to support any new "species" description with
>> empirical evidence. See our publication of Pachycarpus acidostelma. I do
>> not advocate guessing as a means of establishing new species. The analyses
>> we give are based on all the specimens we cite with the protologue. These
>> specimens (exist in Popper's 1st world -- i.e. they are objects). Our
>> species hypotheses (which exist in Popper's 2nd world) can then be tested
>> by others that follow to be verified or falsified. Isn't this how
>> empirical
>> science should work and our understanding of the biological world
>> progress?
>> It is up to journals to demand empirical proof from systematists to
>> support
>> their species hypotheses. This is why herbarium and museums collections
>> are
>> so important to maintain and foster -- they are the only way we can test
>> previously published species hypotheses.
>>
>> Regards
>> Ashley
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> ]
>> on behalf of Michael A. Ivie [ mivie at montana.edu]
>> Sent: 23 October 2013 00:55
>> To: Doug Yanega
>> Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Is the Company "YourSpecies" in Barcelona for real
>> or ahoax?
>>
>> >(heck, you can
>> > describe a new species as "red with black spots", even if it's actually
>> > blue with white spots, and the name will still be accepted).
>>
>> No, it will not be accepted, but it will be valid and available.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.
>> Montana Entomology Collection
>> Marsh Labs, Room 50
>> NW corner of Lincoln and S.19th
>> 1911 West Lincoln Street
>> Montana State University
>> Bozeman, MT 59717
>> USA
>>
>> (406) 994-4610 (voice)
>> (406) 994-6029 (FAX)
>> mivie at montana.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.****
>>
>>  ** **
>>
>>  ** **
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
>