Re: What do you think of this hypothetical biologist's approach? (Look at this one; ignore the previous one I've posted, since there's a typo there)
From: Will Twentyman (wtwentyman_at_read.my.sig)
Date: 12/02/04
- Next message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: Uncountable many reals without Cantor"
- Previous message: Mike Oliver: "Re: Uncountable many reals without Cantor"
- In reply to: Raymond: "What do you think of this hypothetical biologist's approach? (Look at this one; ignore the previous one I've posted, since there's a typo there)"
- Next in thread: Lefty: "Re: What do you think of this hypothetical biologist's approach? (Look at this one; ignore the previous one I've posted, since there's a typo there)"
- Reply: Lefty: "Re: What do you think of this hypothetical biologist's approach? (Look at this one; ignore the previous one I've posted, since there's a typo there)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:25:44 -0500
Raymond wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Please consider the following scenario and tell me what you think.
>
> A biologist sets down a hypothesized list of the physical of wolves
> (e.g. four legs, two furred ears, etc.), against which he may check
> groups of animals to see if the proposed traits can pick up all and
> only the members of the canine group known as wolves. One day he sees
> an animal that happens to possess the qualities he established as
> associated with wolves. Can he therefore conclude that the animal is a
> wolf, and that his hypothesis about the appearance of wolves is still
> maintained?
>
> Or, when others point out to him a wolf of an unknown breed with two
> ears lacking fur (by whatever independent means), is it right for this
> biologist to say that animal is not a wolf because it does not have
> all the traits he proposed?
Somehow, I get the feeling there is more to the story. Anyway, a
biologist gets to define what he/she means by "wolf". These definitions
may change over time to reflect new data, but it would seem that part of
what a biologist does is attempt to categorize animals by phylum,
species, etc.
When presented with a new animal, the biologist should categorize it in
a manner consistent with how the system of classification has been
established. For example, there is a breed of cats that is basically
hairless. Should it be considered a cat? Yes. Why? Because the
categorization is based on certain genetic traits, including the ability
to breed with other cats.
I guess it comes down to the following: what is supposed to be going on?
Is the biologist attempting to *write* a classification for "wolf"
given known species assignments, and then verify the quality of that
classification schema, or is the biologist attempting to determine where
to place a new species in a larger collection of classifications? If
so, what types of properties should animal descriptions satisfy in this
larger scheme?
-- Will Twentyman email: wtwentyman at copper dot net
- Next message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: Uncountable many reals without Cantor"
- Previous message: Mike Oliver: "Re: Uncountable many reals without Cantor"
- In reply to: Raymond: "What do you think of this hypothetical biologist's approach? (Look at this one; ignore the previous one I've posted, since there's a typo there)"
- Next in thread: Lefty: "Re: What do you think of this hypothetical biologist's approach? (Look at this one; ignore the previous one I've posted, since there's a typo there)"
- Reply: Lefty: "Re: What do you think of this hypothetical biologist's approach? (Look at this one; ignore the previous one I've posted, since there's a typo there)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
