Re: KT boundry event

UC wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

UC wrote:


John Harshman wrote:


UC wrote:



John Harshman wrote:



UC wrote:




neverbetter wrote:

[snip]




"Dogs are wolves"
"Cougars are panthers"
"Birds are dinosaurs"

Each of these means something different from the others, and I don't
mean the content as such: I mean the form.

What does it matter if they each mean something different?


Because they are all similar in form, and misinterpretation is too
easy, that's why!

Do you know anyone who has misinterpreted any of these?

They can form nonsense.

That wasn't an answer. It didn't even seem to relate to the question.
Perhaps you will explain what you meant here?

Another of your many endearing characteristics is that you seldom
respond to requests for clarification.

[snip stuff for which you have no answer and so ignore]

But you are the only one who is confused here. Why should we adjust our
writing for you only? Everyone else knows what a bird is.

Right: a bird, not a dinosaur. Dinosurs are extinct. All of them.

Nested group problem again.

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Yes.

See below.

OK, let's see. Nope. All you do below is make up some sort of new rule
that vernacular terms can't follow scientific usage. You can make up all
the rules you like (and you *really* like), but that doesn't reflect the
way we actually use words.

Non sequitur

I don't think non sequitur means what you think it means, whatever that
is.

Argumentum ad ignorantium

Argumentum ad ignorantium doesn't mean what he thinks it means either. I
think he just tosses these out at random when he doesn't have any real
response.

Argumentum ad tedium....

And he seldom has a real response.



Consider two sentences:

"Canis lupus familiaris are also Canis lupus"

"Dogs are not wolves"

Can both of these sentences be true at the same time?

Yes. Why? How?

It has to do with the meanings of the vernacular and taxonomic terms.
The Linnaean terms are simply names, names used for classification. To
the non-specialist, they carry no meaning whatsoever, and even to the
scientist they are merely 'names'. The vernacular terms are NOT
'nested'; they do not refer to any genetic or familiar relationships
between the members of the group. They are simply a 'group' distinct
from another 'group'. 'Dogs' are a group that is distinct from
'cattle', 'wolves', and 'sheep'. The vernacular terms unify in a group
those things that traditionally have been considered similar, based on
appearance (morphology), behaviour, and usefulness or importance to
man, and these are the ONLY criteria that matter in the vernacular
usage of these terms.

My, what a lot of verbiage to make a pointless point. Yes, we usually
don't mean to include dogs when we say "wolf". But that doesn't mean
"dogs are wolves" is false, because language is flexible enough to
accomodate all manner of shades of meaning. The average person will
understand exactly what you mean if you say that, i.e. that dogs are a
domesticated form of wolf. Your empty formalism is silly.

On the vernacular level, i.e., using the vernacular terms, dogs are not
wolves, nor are birds dinsosaurs. The vernacular terms do not, and
should not, match the 'nesting' of the Linnaean terms, because the
vernacular terms are based on different criteria and used for different
purposes.

Why? Because you say so? Vernacular terms are often nested. There's no
reason they shouldn't be. It's true that people once were not aware that
birds are dinosaurs, and thus didn't think of the groups as being
nested. But now scientists know this, and the public perception is
changing too. There's nothing wrong with changing perceptions.

The Linnaean nomenclature exists strictly for classification; it has no
other purpose.

That's quite wrong, but it also seems irrelevant to any point you may be
making.

The vernacular terms are used for many other purposes
that have nothing to do with classification, and do not mirror Linnaean
classification, nor should they.

Generally the vernacular terms do mirror classification. Why shouldn't
they? You seem to think there's some kind of uncrossable line between
vernacular and scientific usage. Why?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... There are many vernacular terms that are precise enough, ... The statement "birds are dinosaurs" is ... people agree when the facts are explained to them. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... dinosaur would mean that dinosaurs aren't extinct, ... Your claim is that we can't call birds "dinosaurs" because ... discussiong the meaning of vernacular terms at all. ... the one determined by tradition and accepted by people at large, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... dinosaur would mean that dinosaurs aren't extinct, ... Your claim is that we can't call birds "dinosaurs" because ... discussiong the meaning of vernacular terms at all. ... membership determined by some defining characteristics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... dinosaur would mean that dinosaurs aren't extinct, ... accepted that extinction is irrelevant to the question of whether birds ... discussiong the meaning of vernacular terms at all. ... membership determined by some defining characteristics. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... There are many vernacular terms that are precise enough, ... The statement "birds are dinosaurs" is ... people agree when the facts are explained to them. ...
    (talk.origins)