|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jun 2, 2008 8:58:37 GMT
I love Thags astronomical analogy in a recent thread It nicely examplifies the deficient and superficial nature of classifications. *Makes a note of it* Astronomical bodies, like life, form a continuum of shape and size. Classifications on the other hand, by definition, are split into discrete groupings. No matter what the definitions of the classification are, there will always be bodies (or taxa) that sit right on the boundaries of any given classification system. This puts a previous statement made by Piltdown into perspective, which goes along these lines: If Caudipteryx is a bird I like it but if it is a dinosaur I don't like it. This is like saying if Pluto is a planet I like it but if it is a dwarf planet I don't like it. The classification has no bearing on the characteristics of the body (taxa). Classifications are there to help us talk about the world around us, not to retrodict what the world around us should be like.
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Jun 2, 2008 12:04:57 GMT
This puts a previous statement made by Piltdown into perspective, which goes along these lines: If Caudipteryx is a bird I like it but if it is a dinosaur I don't like it. This is like saying if Pluto is a planet I like it but if it is a dwarf planet I don't like it. Actually I do share that sentiment about Pluto too ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jun 2, 2008 12:49:44 GMT
In that case, you're the only adult I know who decides if they like something based on its name. ;D
I understand it if you would prefer Pluto to be a planet (for historical reasons), but I seriously don't understand how you can have so much invested in the classification, that it can cause you to dislike the body itself(!). Could you explain?
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Jun 2, 2008 19:06:45 GMT
I knew Pluto was an anomaly amongst the outer planets, because of its size, its lack of gassiness and its peculiar orbit, but because it was officially designated a planet then I would grant it some respect for its status. Now that it has been demoted or plutoed then it's just a rock that has been given too much attention. ;D It's like politicians--one may not like them, but as long as they're in office one addresses them in such terms as Your Excellency or the Honourable etc. When they're out of office though one is free to despise them as much as one wants without fear of retaliation ;D
|
|
|
Post by piltdown on Jun 2, 2008 19:09:04 GMT
And that is why classifications and definitions are crucial--not in terms of the object itself, but in how we are to behave and act towards it. It's just a quirk of the human mind, I know, and has led to much folly, but we're stuck with words Iguanodons and hadrosaurs are another case for me. I don't much care for them, but since they're officially classified as 'dinosaurs' then I have to dutifully plow through discussions on their chewing technique. But if in the unlikely scenario it is cladistically proven that duckbills are not 'dinosaurs', then I can freely ignore them ;D Very unreasonable I know ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jun 2, 2008 21:34:29 GMT
Thanks for explaining - I think I get your thought process, even if it is irrational. Well at least you yourself realize it's unreasonable, I can't ask for much more than that ;D
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Jun 2, 2008 23:18:12 GMT
If Caudipteryx is a bird I like it but if it is a dinosaur I don't like it. Bird is a vernacular, not scientific term. Bird in my dictionary means... "A warm blooded, egg-laying vertebrate distinguished by the characteristics of feathers, wings and a beak and (typically) being able to fly." Under that definition, Caudipteryx is a bird! And Archaeopteryx isn't since it didn't have a beak
|
|
|
Post by crazycrowman on Jun 3, 2008 3:02:50 GMT
"Under that definition, Caudipteryx is a bird! And Archaeopteryx isn't since it didn't have a beak "
It did not have a "toothless" beak.....so we can get into a discussion about what a beak is defined as, right ?.
|
|
|
Post by thagomizer on Jun 3, 2008 6:30:44 GMT
"Under that definition, Caudipteryx is a bird! And Archaeopteryx isn't since it didn't have a beak " It did not have a "toothless" beak.....so we can get into a discussion about what a beak is defined as, right ?. My dictionary says "a birds horny projecting jaws; a bill." or "the similar horny projecting jaws of other animals, e.g., a turtle or squid." Nothing about not having teeth in it. Anyway, more advanced oviraptorosuars had toothless beaks. So they're birds under that definition any way you slice it. And many enantiornithes didn't have beaks. so they're not birds. Frankly, I don't think "beak" is very important to the definition of birds in light of this...
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jun 3, 2008 9:03:04 GMT
And that's all academic anyway. No matter HOW you define beak, or bird, or whatever, it's always going to be insufficient and debated because or the intrinsic incompatibility between classification and life. There is always going to be some critter that sit right on the shared boundary of any definition, that's the point of my original post.
"I am's what I am" - Popeye
|
|
|
Post by tomhet on Jun 3, 2008 21:26:05 GMT
^^^ Your quote definitely brings this scientifical debate to a whole new level
|
|
|
Post by Dinotoyforum on Jun 3, 2008 23:02:28 GMT
;D
|
|
tiermann
Full Member
Playmosaurus
Posts: 142
|
Post by tiermann on Jun 18, 2008 18:27:54 GMT
The big risk I see with being invested in a classification scheme is that of passing by interesting stuff because it doesn't exist in an existing classification. The brain is wired to follow existing pathways first, so if no path exists to the concept it takes more effort to make the connections. It's much easier to just dismiss it as unimportant or not even notice it than go through the effort to see what's really there.
|
|