Fwd: Re: species concepts (this is long!)

[warrena at bcc.orst.edu]

John and others,

Ok, I will read Lakatos.  Any other papers you can 
suggest?  I will read them and consider what they say.  
You respond by saying "propaganda" when I 
said that the best theories are the simplest and 
easiest to disprove.  Popper elaborates on this, as 
have many others since then.  Can you provide a single 
liturature citation for a paper or book that rebuts 
this idea?  Please, let me know if you know of one 
(something modern, please- and some do exist).  Please 
justify your views using concrete examples (if you know 
how to justify anything, or feel like you have to)...  

There is no point in continuing this dialogue with you 
since you have not, and apparently won't, read the 
literature I am talking about; I don't have time (this 
is my last leps-l response to you on this topic...).  
You have taken such a hostile tone; have I offended 
you?  You obviously know much more about the subject 
without even having read the literature.  Wow!  I'm 
impressed.  

Andy  

Quoting John Grehan <jrg13 at psu.edu>:

> Please hit the delete now if nitpicking over
> definitions (particularly on a 
> Lepidoptera list) is not your cup of tea (and my
> apologies for pursuing the 
> subject).
> 
> >If species definitions did not matter, there
> would not
> >be an enormous body of literature dealing with
> the
> >issue (I could cite over 100 publications
> here).
> 
> My view is that definitions do not matter in the
> sense that they
> are not a solution to anything. They just
> summarize a particular
> view. Arguing over definitions does not, of
> itself, solve anything.
> 
> >If
> >they did not matter, people would have no
> reason to
> >argue over them.
> 
> In that sense I agree - people take time over
> what matters
> to them (myself included).
> 
> >In fact the use of various species
> >concepts have huge implications in conservation
> (see
> >Barrowclough et al. 1996)
> 
> Different criteria would have different
> implications I agree.
> 
> >Well, this may be close to the truth in
> practice, but
> >cannot be taken literally (read Wheeler &
> Meier,
> >2000!).
> 
> Please state what you think Wheeler & Meier have
> to say
> in that respect.
> 
> >  So definitions are the foundation of
> > > objectivity?
> >
> >I don't know about that, but without
> definitions for
> >terms, I don't think they can be used very
> >objectively.  Without a definition for a
> species or
> >subspecies, those things simply become
> "whatever some
> >taxonomist says they are."
> 
> It seems to me that in making a definition one
> is indeed making things
> whatever someone says they are. I agree that
> definitions provides
> terms of reference, but
> whether the application is any more 'objective'
> or not
> is something I am not so sure of. In my own
> field of biogeography
> one can define a Darwinian center of origin in
> all sorts of ways
> without the concept itself becoming any more
> objective in reality.
> 
> 
> >They are working hard at it!  That is why they
> have
> >proposed species concepts.
> 
> It seems to me that instead of a 'standard
> definition' for species
> the trend is for a multiplicity.
> 
> >All of the following modified definitions of
> species
> >concepts are VERY WRONG, way off!  These are
> complex
> >concepts, and require many printed pages to
> explain and
> >illustrate.  You should read the literature
> before
> >trying to summarize these!
> 
> So far as I can see the concepts are not that
> complex at all, and my 
> rewording may indeed have some validity with
> respect to the fact that
> each definition provides an essential,
> spatiotemporally unrestricted 
> quality to the species.
> 
> 
> 
> > > In terms of spatio-temporal independance
> these
> > > different definitions are
> > > really not all that different afterall.
> >
> >Actually, yes they are.  Some of these concepts
> deal
> >well considering contemporary and fossil taxa
> >simultaneously (while some do not).  It is
> all
> >discussed in the literature.
> 
> This does not matter in the sense that the
> definitions appear to refer to 
> spatio-temporally unrestricted essences.
> 
> 
> >Ok, then how are you are going to justify your
> opinion?
> 
> One can 'justify' ones opinion in any way one
> may like. Whether one's 
> justification is 'better' than any other is
> something that defies pre-diction.
> 
> >I guessd I answered this already by pointing
> out that
> >there is a huge body of literature devoted to
> the
> >topic.
> 
> Huge body or not, does not for me, provide the
> defining essence of time 
> well spent. Was there not a time when the
> question of how many angels may 
> dance on the end of a pin was regarded as time
> well spent?
> 
> >Actually, I think the abundance of species
> >concepts shows how important they really are to
> working
> >taxonomists.
> 
> It shows that this is a preoccupation of a
> number of people - yes.
> 
> >I encourage you to publish your views on
> >why species concepts are a waste of time!  They
> would
> >be frequently cited, at least!
> 
> Unpopular views are not necessarily of general
> interest. The fact is
> that for many taxonomists debating definitions
> is time well spent for them.
> 
> > > >This enables
> > > >workers to defend each and every
> taxonomic
> > > decision
> > > >they make on the grounds of their species
> > > concept.
> > >
> > > Why bother having to defend one's
> taxonomic
> > > decision. If there are
> > > competing views and all have validity,
> defense
> > > seems to become irrelevant.
> >
> >Apply this to the real world and the legal
> system.
> >Think about it.  If you can't defend your
> taxonomic
> >decisions (= actions), you have no business
> making
> >those decisions in the first place.
> 
> Ability to 'defend' one's position is simply a
> rhetorical device. Good for
> lawyers and scientists engaged in influencing
> opinion.
> 
> >I would really love to see some citations to
> back up
> >these two statements.  You state them as facts,
> let's
> >see the proof [or inother words, please defend
> your
> >statements].  I would really like to see
> papers
> >supporting these views.
> 
> Read Lakatos. But that's not a defence.
> 
> > > This is just one philosophical view. Under
> this
> > > criterion witchcraft is
> > > science.
> >
> >I would love to see the citation for this!!!
> 
> Again, read Lakatos.
> 
> >I cannot claim this is, strictly speaking,
> true.
> >However, the weight of the liturature dealing
> with the
> >topic says that the most parsimonious
> explanation for a
> >problem is the best (from a scientific point of
> view).
> 
> Yes its just the most popular view of things.
> 
> >While not all authors on the topic agree
> (certainly
> >anyone using maximim liklihood algorighms would
> not),
> >this disagreement seems unique.  The more ad
> hoc
> >principles that go into a hypothesis, the less
> testable
> >it becomes, and therefore, the less desirable
> it
> >becomes (as far as a scientific theory goes,
> even most
> >ML proponents agree with this in general).
> 
> One one takes this position then obviously it is
> true.
> 
> 
> >The best
> >theories are the simplest and easiest to
> disprove.
> 
> Propaganda
> 
> 
> >Without definitions, you can't define what you
> are
> >doing, and it is not repeatable.  Then it is
> not
> >science.
> 
> Ah - so definitions make science! Interesting.
> 
> John Grehan
> 
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
------
> 
> 
>    For subscription and related information
> about LEPS-L visit:
> 
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl 
>  
> 

----- End forwarded message -----

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl