Lumping vs. splitting seems to raise basic issues in the philosophy of science that of course the wokesters don't want to grapple with. If color is a spectrum, do colors exist? What about all the various seas and oceans in the world ocean - do those exist? Isn't it all one big ocean? What's the exact height at which a man goes from 'tall' to 'not tall' to 'short'? What about mountains, hills, and valleys - if the sea level rises, do the heights of the mountains all change?
I think I saw Razib Khan use a phrase like "meaningful variation in population structure" or something like that, to suggest a 'scientific' definition of 'race.'
The tension between lumping and splitting comes up all the time in medicine. The decision has implications for treatment. If you decide the same kind of cancer can have two distinct appearances on a slide, you can apply what you know about how to treat the one to the other. If they are different and the other is a new kind of cancer, you are a lot less sure. When choosing lumping over splitting you need to take account of what you are getting out of the choice and what you are losing. If you are a pathologist and you want to split something into two cancers are you doing it so you can get a paper out of it and maybe name it? Or do you think the new cancer is different enough to have different treatment and prognosis implications?
Steve, are you honestly complaining about being covered in beautiful and endangered San Fernando Blue Eyed Coyote Ticks? Shame.
I'm in favor of protecting endangered species. Something doesn't sit well emotionally about the idea that something could be gone and we might want it back someday, but can't. As you point out, this anxiety is mostly about the more adorable or impressive animals. Sure I don't need to see a giant panda in person today, but what if my descendants do? Still, I'm pretty confident none of my descendants would ever regret the loss of a snail darter or a spine weed. They could look at a hologram if it really bugs them.
Seems to me we could sequence anything we are afraid of using and store it. I don't think we know everything that would be needed to revivify a species. It is very likely not just the DNA of the chromosomes and mitochondria. We could work on that and once we were confident it works we could set up a government facility to preserve all the needed information to bring back all the snail darters and spine flowers our future citizens could ever need.
Then we can rewrite the endangered species act and build things again. Then, three hundred years from now they could knock down that facility after realizing no one had ever used it and they want to build a robot golf course on the site.
They might be part of the great food chain or maybe vital to the ecosystem? Possibly they stave off global warming. Surely their extinction would have disparate impact, at least. And what would people claim to have now that chronic aseptic lyme disease is off the table? You have to think these things through
I'm from Tennessee originally and remember the snail darter controversy well. I now live near the Texas Gulf Coast where there are some canines that have been identified as carrying the red wolf genes. They are probably crossed with coyotes, which will mate with wolves, dogs, you name it. I once killed a wild dog/coyote with the wheel of my airplane while landing at Boston's Hanscomb field. But then we come to humans and races. There are four dogs in my room with me right now, a Lab, an Australian Cattle Dog and two Border Collies. They are all dogs but they look different and have different characteristics because they are different breeds. It's the same with humans, whether you call it race, breed or tribe, it is a fact that we are all different in terms of characteristics due to our breeding, if you will. We're just like dogs, horses, cattle, cats, goats, sheep, whatever in that respect. Call it what you will but there are racial differences and it's not just in appearance.
Although my default instinct is towards protection/preservation of nature, the real issue for development of a given property is whether reduction or removal of a plant or animal from a given area has broader and negative implications or not. Similarly, when trying to determine whether two fish or whatever are distinct species I would think the same sort of thing applies - does one version fulfill a unique role in the ecological system that the other does not, or do they basically do the same thing?
When it comes to humans, the side that is all about diversity denies it actually exists when it comes to whether different groups just might have different physical/cognitive abilities as a result of extended periods of time of their ancestral groups being under different selective pressures. Humans have come a long way in the last few thousand years and especially in the last 500 or so, but I am not sure rationality has really progressed at all.
> Dr. Plater, who also argued successfully for the fish in the Supreme Court case, took issue with [Dr. Near's] Yale study... He believes the findings also lean too heavily on genetics.
That's a great line.
* He believes that [restaurant ratings] lean too heavily on [the quality of food & service].
* He believes that [clinical decisions] lean too heavily on [what's best for the patient].
* He believes that [bankruptcy rulings] lean too heavily on [solvency issues].
* He believes that [your height] leans too heavily on [how tall you are].
Etc.
On a more personal note, Thomas Near will shortly find himself on the A List for every upcoming social event at Yale. He should prepare to be celebrated for prioritizing the integrity of the scientific process, especially after its reputation has been cratered by the Replication Crisis, high-profile scandals, and unbridled careerism.
That's definitely how his fellow academicians will see things.
If Zuckerberg was relying on Pete Dye to butter up the naturalist that was a bad move. Pete was pricklier than the sagebrush. If he got Pete's wife Alice to do it then he deserves his fortune.
Developers tend to be destructive. The two words share the same first syllable. Anything that keeps developers from ruining land is conservative. By their very nature, developers are anti-conservative.
Not many comments on the snail darter article. They’re all over at a story about newly introduced congestion pricing in NYC.
Most popular: “This is the problem when the experts are also "activists." You don't get an objective truth. This guy didn't want the dam and made up a reason to prevent it. The problem is there is trickle down effect to other "expert" opinions. People begin to doubt.”
Lumping vs. splitting seems to raise basic issues in the philosophy of science that of course the wokesters don't want to grapple with. If color is a spectrum, do colors exist? What about all the various seas and oceans in the world ocean - do those exist? Isn't it all one big ocean? What's the exact height at which a man goes from 'tall' to 'not tall' to 'short'? What about mountains, hills, and valleys - if the sea level rises, do the heights of the mountains all change?
I think I saw Razib Khan use a phrase like "meaningful variation in population structure" or something like that, to suggest a 'scientific' definition of 'race.'
The tension between lumping and splitting comes up all the time in medicine. The decision has implications for treatment. If you decide the same kind of cancer can have two distinct appearances on a slide, you can apply what you know about how to treat the one to the other. If they are different and the other is a new kind of cancer, you are a lot less sure. When choosing lumping over splitting you need to take account of what you are getting out of the choice and what you are losing. If you are a pathologist and you want to split something into two cancers are you doing it so you can get a paper out of it and maybe name it? Or do you think the new cancer is different enough to have different treatment and prognosis implications?
When I voted for Obama I thought I was voting for a lumper. As his first term unfolded I found I had helped elect a splitter.
I apologize for my naive behavior.
Steve, are you honestly complaining about being covered in beautiful and endangered San Fernando Blue Eyed Coyote Ticks? Shame.
I'm in favor of protecting endangered species. Something doesn't sit well emotionally about the idea that something could be gone and we might want it back someday, but can't. As you point out, this anxiety is mostly about the more adorable or impressive animals. Sure I don't need to see a giant panda in person today, but what if my descendants do? Still, I'm pretty confident none of my descendants would ever regret the loss of a snail darter or a spine weed. They could look at a hologram if it really bugs them.
Seems to me we could sequence anything we are afraid of using and store it. I don't think we know everything that would be needed to revivify a species. It is very likely not just the DNA of the chromosomes and mitochondria. We could work on that and once we were confident it works we could set up a government facility to preserve all the needed information to bring back all the snail darters and spine flowers our future citizens could ever need.
Then we can rewrite the endangered species act and build things again. Then, three hundred years from now they could knock down that facility after realizing no one had ever used it and they want to build a robot golf course on the site.
Could we make ticks extinct? Please!
They might be part of the great food chain or maybe vital to the ecosystem? Possibly they stave off global warming. Surely their extinction would have disparate impact, at least. And what would people claim to have now that chronic aseptic lyme disease is off the table? You have to think these things through
I'm from Tennessee originally and remember the snail darter controversy well. I now live near the Texas Gulf Coast where there are some canines that have been identified as carrying the red wolf genes. They are probably crossed with coyotes, which will mate with wolves, dogs, you name it. I once killed a wild dog/coyote with the wheel of my airplane while landing at Boston's Hanscomb field. But then we come to humans and races. There are four dogs in my room with me right now, a Lab, an Australian Cattle Dog and two Border Collies. They are all dogs but they look different and have different characteristics because they are different breeds. It's the same with humans, whether you call it race, breed or tribe, it is a fact that we are all different in terms of characteristics due to our breeding, if you will. We're just like dogs, horses, cattle, cats, goats, sheep, whatever in that respect. Call it what you will but there are racial differences and it's not just in appearance.
Although my default instinct is towards protection/preservation of nature, the real issue for development of a given property is whether reduction or removal of a plant or animal from a given area has broader and negative implications or not. Similarly, when trying to determine whether two fish or whatever are distinct species I would think the same sort of thing applies - does one version fulfill a unique role in the ecological system that the other does not, or do they basically do the same thing?
When it comes to humans, the side that is all about diversity denies it actually exists when it comes to whether different groups just might have different physical/cognitive abilities as a result of extended periods of time of their ancestral groups being under different selective pressures. Humans have come a long way in the last few thousand years and especially in the last 500 or so, but I am not sure rationality has really progressed at all.
Too bad the EPA wasn't around during the Cretaceous period. We would have had the occasional Ankylosaurus to play with.
> To many people, “science” means “precise.” After all, nature can’t be messy.
One of my favorite Dawkins / evolution quotes is, "There was no first human"
It is also the mindset that obliterates the vegan midwit argument of, "Name the trait"
> Dr. Plater, who also argued successfully for the fish in the Supreme Court case, took issue with [Dr. Near's] Yale study... He believes the findings also lean too heavily on genetics.
That's a great line.
* He believes that [restaurant ratings] lean too heavily on [the quality of food & service].
* He believes that [clinical decisions] lean too heavily on [what's best for the patient].
* He believes that [bankruptcy rulings] lean too heavily on [solvency issues].
* He believes that [your height] leans too heavily on [how tall you are].
Etc.
On a more personal note, Thomas Near will shortly find himself on the A List for every upcoming social event at Yale. He should prepare to be celebrated for prioritizing the integrity of the scientific process, especially after its reputation has been cratered by the Replication Crisis, high-profile scandals, and unbridled careerism.
That's definitely how his fellow academicians will see things.
If Zuckerberg was relying on Pete Dye to butter up the naturalist that was a bad move. Pete was pricklier than the sagebrush. If he got Pete's wife Alice to do it then he deserves his fortune.
Developers tend to be destructive. The two words share the same first syllable. Anything that keeps developers from ruining land is conservative. By their very nature, developers are anti-conservative.
Not many comments on the snail darter article. They’re all over at a story about newly introduced congestion pricing in NYC.
Most popular: “This is the problem when the experts are also "activists." You don't get an objective truth. This guy didn't want the dam and made up a reason to prevent it. The problem is there is trickle down effect to other "expert" opinions. People begin to doubt.”
See: "Climate change."
That's a beautiful golf course.
Money and earthly knowledge. Which one wins out over time.
My money is on money.