Re: Vernacular and Linnaean Naming (Was: KT boundary event)


Alexander wrote:
UC wrote:
Alexander wrote:
UC wrote:
Alexander wrote:
UC wrote:
r norman wrote:
On 14 Jun 2006 14:01:23 -0700, "UC" <uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


schnipp


If you want to say "birds are dinosaurs" it shows you have no
understanding of how to communicate scientific information, whether you
like to hear that or not.

If you're talking about the communication of scientific information to
the general public you might have the glimmering of the begining of a
point. If you are saying the usage of phrases and expressions common
in the scientific community rarely translate well in the public domain
then I don't think many here would disagree.

All right, then.

The mis-application of
the word 'theory' is a better example of this - whether it's done
deliberately within the creationist camp or just casually in the media
the usage rarely coincides with the specific scientific application of
the term.

A splendid example. Of course, 'theory' ('Theorie') also has different
meanings in German, etc.

Let's try and focus on English - we at least might achieve a consensus
view that way. Of course different languages will have varied
meanings, but the real issue is whether those meanings are applied
consistently within certain communities and, more importantly, those
differences can be translated and accomodated within different language
speaking sections of those communities.



If you mean can scientists communicate clearly amongst themselves then
the answer is certainly yes.

I have little doubt of that.

The fact that they use specific meanings
and apply that meaning in a narrow fashion would only be a problem if
they then changed those understandings and definitions within the
community at random. As the scientific community relies on consistency
of evidence and interpretation of that evidence then this is rarely a
problem.

I'm not sure about this.

You will need, then, to provide a contemporary example of where a
difference of opinion on an issue has occurred _solely_ due to the
misapplication of a single word or phrase. I could have read you
incorrectly but your argument seems to focus on the misunderstandings
generated through the use of particular words or phrases so would need
evidence of how this occurs from you.

I may have misread what you wrote here. That's why I wrote "I'm not
sure about this."

I'll have to consider it.

I don't quite see what there is to consider. Your contention is that
there is a misapplication of terminology leading to poor standards of
education.

I have not said that. The poor standards of language eductaion have
long been a problem. When I entered college in 1967, much more English
study was required than is today. In fact, the number of hours was
reduced substantially by the mid-70's, at least at Ohio State.

All of the actual paleaontology experts on this forum have
demonstrated the arguments around why this statement is made with
reasonable confidence.

'Confidence'? it has nothing to do with confidence or sciuence. It has
to do with language. 'Dogs are wolves" is false for the same reason.
The words have disjunctive meanings. They mean different things, and
that is an historical fact.

Your assertion is that the problem is within
the language. If it's not a problem with the language used then you
will have to take those experts who've studied for years, to PhD level,
and written papers on this field why their contentions about the
association between birds and dinosaurs are incorrect.

'Aves' and 'Dinosauria', please.

The following are some acceptable formulations if you are talking to
the layman:

"The ancestors of birds were dinosaurs"

"Birds are descended from dinosaurs."

The following is NOT acceptable lexically:

"Birds are dinosaurs."

I'm looking for evidence of how that is achieved solely through a
single phrase being applied within biology/paleaontology. I'm looking
for evidence of how this has actually led to a difference of opinion as
claimed, by you, frequently.

????? Unclear.


If your argument is that the misunderstanding comes from where science
uses terminology in a certain fashion and the general public in another
then this is an unremarkable thing to claim.

That's a large part of it, which would be solved if you stuck to
scientific language exclusively, or at least stopped "talking down" to
people.

I don't think it's 'talking down' at all. I'm quite happy for
shorthand to be used to get the general points across, being a layman
in these matters. I am quite happy for Dawkins to 'talk down' to me,
as I do not currently have the time to do an Msc and PhD in a related
field just to query his assertions. We have to accept compromise
somewhere along the line and brevity in language is the obvious
solution. As long as the actual science is not being distorted then
there is no issue.

It's not the science that is being distorted, it's violence being done
to the language.



I've probably
misunderstood you myself but would welcome clarification.


The fixation on 'birds are dinosaurs' is a minor issue and can be shown
how this is a useful shorthand for a more complex point that can be
examined through rigorous study. You have to start somewhere. 6 year
olds don't get told how you can do advanced maths by replacing numbers
with letters after all when all you initially need to understand is how
1 + 1 = 2.

I disagree, obviously. 6-year olds don't need, then, to be told "birds
are dinosaurs" at all, if they cannot understand it in more
sophisticated language.

I'm afraid you've missed my point. In order for education to work _at
all_ you need to have a foundational understanding of the concepts
underpinning it. The point of informing students that 'birds are
dinosaurs' or that '1+1=2' is not to mislead but apply a simplistic
terminology that can later be built upon.

But it's literally false, and the qualifications needed to make it
accurate are beyond the capacity of 6-year olds anyway. So, what's the
point?

It's only 'literally' false if you take the phrase in isolation.
No-one is actually claiming that birds are literally dinosaurs.

That's the problem. We can't tell that. It leads to confusion.

The
only time I've ever heard the phrase is within a much longer context of
discussion about how we can see the comparisons between theropods and
modern birds. Taking one phrase and using it as a rod to beat people
with is, in itself, a literalistic application of language. People do
not communicate this way and education itself cannot be founded on the
complexities of the ultimate arguments involved in the subjects
themselves being foisted on everyone at first point of contact.

Do you ever read books aimed at the layman? Do you ever watch nature
television programmes such as the Nature Channel or the national
Geographic Channel? These present "birds are dinosaurs" in the
following way:

Computer animated video of various typical big dinosaurs (you know,
Stegosaurus, T Rex, etc.).....then the flash of the big
asteroid...then smoke everywhere with narration something like "and
then they all died....or did they?"...
cut to footage of flamingos and wading birds..."they are still with
us....we know them as......birds..."

Is this accurate? NO WAY! It implies that Stegosauruses became
flamingos...


Without the foundational understanding you can not apply later
knowledge in a critical fashion.

Depends on what you mean by "foundational understanding". What does the
typical 6-year old NEED to know about dinosaurs?

Well if we're going to be like that what does any child _need_ to know
about anything? I can't recall using quadratic equations since I left
secondary school so did I really _need_ to sit through tedious classes.
I didn't _need_ to understand how thermistors or Newtonian physics
worked or, in my day to day life, have ever really argued the merits of
Big Bang theory. I didn't _need_ those.

Evolution is the major component behind how we understand Biology.
Without an explanation of elements such as how we, and birds, came to
be there isn't much point to teaching evolutionary theory at all.

My question was what does a 6-year old need to know about dinosaurs?


It's imperative that learning does
include the process of critical study so that later, once the full
facts are explained to a student, they have the capacity to make
informed judgements themselves. However, for most of us the nuances
will never be clear as part of general education from the ages of 11-18
and this will be true of any subject.

Of course.

The semantic wrangling over whether a bird _IS_ a dinosaur is no more
important to a student than the origin of the word itself. I do not
think students suffer under the illusion that what they are studying
are, in fact, 'thunder lizards'.

When you create a name from an ancient language, it is bound to be
peculiar.

Which is the point. As you are so fond of pointing out this name
itself has a history and the Victorians who uncovered the first fossils
within the UK were hard pushed to see how it all fitted into God's
plan. The context of that discussion is not something that is ever
really put over to students but is no less germane within your argument
for historicity of linguistics to be taken into account.

????? Unclear.



The context of discussion is
important here and as long as statements can be supported by evidence
then a shorthand for the more complex explanation of contemporary birds
relationship to their ancestors is useful for laying the groundwork.

We don't teach kids that the 'A,B,C' is in fact an arbitrary tool
arrived through consensus and usage of such can denote and connote
implicit power relationships, especially in relation to gender and
'race'. The lack of this specific aspect of linguistic deconstruction
is probably not useful or applicable at nursery or junior school grades
... it doesn't stop the statement being true or the students being in
ignorance of the complexities of language. However we don't stop
teaching kids in a structured methodical manner how to form words,
sentences and narrative expositions in a way which conforms to
encultured expectations.

There is no obstacle, within education, to utilising a shorthand that
can be exploited further down the line and built upon for those
interested in expanding their knowledge. Like I said earlier - you
have to start somewhere.

I disagree. In fact, I have often resented this approach in my ow
education.It's actually lying.

In college, I took a Classics class which covered early ancient Greece,
Micenean and Minoan civilization, etc. At the conclusion of the
quarter, we were asked to evaluate the text-book and the teacher, who
was Stephen V. Tracy, now Director of the American School of Classical
Studies in Athens.

I gave Dr. Tracy very high marks, but gave the book a very poor
evaluation. One of the things about it that I remember vividly was that
it compared Greek religion to Christianity. Now I found this to be
absoultely absurd. The differences are far more numerous and
significant than the similarities.

I mentioned this to Dr Tracy when I saw him walking across campus a few
quarters later. He remembered that I was the only one in the class who
did not give the book very high marks. He mentioned that he agreed with
my criticisms, but that the book would be retained because of the fact
that the students liked it.

Is that how things operate in your field? Now you know why I have such
a low regard for academics (spit). Not Dr Tracy, mind you. I'm sure
this was department policy over which he had no control.

He is a brilliant scholar and a fine human being.

Ah - so your objections come from disregard for academics (with the
possible exception of Eco ... oh ... and Tracy). At the same time you
say you have more authority to discuss linguistics than most on this
forum. How do you come by that assertion? If you disdain academics
then surely anyone has as much right, and knowledge, to discuss any
subject at all.

Perhaps I should say 'academecians' (spit), because you are getting
confused with the sense of 'academics' meaning academic pursuits. I
enjoy academic pursuits.

At the moment it looks like you are just complaining about those
academics who don't agree with you.

No, I accuse them of lying and incompetence.

You haven't addressed my main point which is not what you see as
deceit, but a structured approach to learning. A lot of my family have
worked, or do work, in education and the process of teaching is not as
simple as you would imply. When you come up with a structured lesson
plan that manages to not 'talk down' to the students but still
explaining the complexities of theropod - bird evolution you might have
real cause to stamp your feet.

I could do it far, far better than is being done on the television
programmes I have seen, that's for damned sure!











Your communication skills are lacking. You want to know why a majority
of Americans don't accept Darwinism? Because of incompetent people like
you!


Well no. The large number of anti-evolutionists is down to religious
prejudice and a culture of anti-intellectualism in the US. A culture
more or less unique in the western world. Your obssession with
linguistics and Eco notwithstanding there is more to communication
processes than either the historicity of use and structuralist
application of the grammarian approach. You might benefit from reading
beyond semiology.


I offer you a solution to the problem, and you point your finger at me?
How quaint!

In fairness I don't believe an actual solution has been offered. I
don't see what exactly qualifies you to shout down the experts in their
fields purely on linguistic grounds either. Perhaps you'd care to
clarify what makes you such an authority (and why the only authority
you cite is Eco)?

.

Quantcast