Re: Chez Watt Re: Common ancestor between man and ape

In message <uranium-1184254639.819172.191110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, UC <uraniumcommittee@xxxxxxxxx> writes
On Jul 12, 11:26 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
UC wrote:
> On Jul 12, 10:28 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:

>>UC wrote:

>>>On Jul 11, 6:10 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>wrote:

>>>>UC wrote:

>>>>>On Jul 11, 5:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>wrote:

>>>>>>UC wrote:

>>>>>>>On Jul 11, 5:02 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>>>>>>On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:54:32 -0000, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>in talk.origins, posted by UC <uraniumcommit...@xxxxxxxxx>:

>>>>>>>>>On Jul 11, 3:46 pm, Harvest Dancer >>>>>>>>><harvestdan...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>>>>>><snip>

>>>>>>>>>>It's either up to you, or it's up to the
>>>>>>>>>>majority of the people who use the term. It's a clear cut >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>the majority or UC. Which should we abide by, the majority or UC?

>>>>>>>>>The majority's usage is recorded in the damned dictionary!

>>>>>>>>Oh, so archaeopteryx *is* a bird...

>>>>>>>>Thanks for conceding that.

>>>>>>>No, THAT is not a matter of usage...we have discussed this before...

>>>>>>Apparently you have a personal definition of "usage". If, when >>>>>>referring
>>>>>>to Archaeopteryx, someone says "this bird", that's usage. And it's a
>>>>>>usage you say is wrong for reasons you have never been able to make
>>>>>>clear. Nobody (including, I suspect, you) is able to tell what >>>>>>we should
>>>>>>or should not be calling a bird according to your notion.

>>>>>>The overwhelming majority, when referring to Archaeopteryx, call it a
>>>>>>bird. So by your expressed criterion above (as recorded in the
>>>>>>dictionary, incidentally) it's correct to call Archaeopteryx a bird.

>>>>>>So could you explain why it's wrong nevertheless?

>>>>>The issue of usage would concern the vernacular term 'bird', not the
>>>>>Linnaean term 'Archaeopteryx'.

>>>>And "bird" is what we're talking about here. Does the term "bird"
>>>>include Archaeopteryx? Nearly universal usage says it does, since people
>>>>commonly refer to Archaeopteryx using the word "bird".

>>>>>The issue of 'Archaeopteryx' would be
>>>>>the classification of Archaeopteryx as 'Aves', not as 'bird'.

>>>>That's another issue, actually. Is it surprising to know that there is
>>>>more than one possible issue?

>>>>>'Archaeopteryx' cannot be classed as 'bird' because 'bird' is not a
>>>>>Linnaean term. There is NO vernacular term for Archaeopteryx, not
>>>>>'bird', not anything.

>>>>Oddly, everyone except you considers "bird" to be a vernacular term that
>>>>applies to Archaeopteryx, in exactly the same way it applies to Turdus,
>>>>Harpactes, or Remiz.

>>>>>Are you with me? There is NO USAGE issue for 'Archaeopteryx'. It is
>>>>>merely a name, and is essentially meaningless.

>>>>You are tying yourself in knots. All nouns are merely names, and they
>>>>all have meanings, i.e. their attachments to the things they name.
>>>>"Bird" is an arbitrary sound we attach to certain things, Archaeopteryx
>>>>among them.

>>>>Try to focus here and stop drifting off into irrelevancies. Why can't
>>>>you call Archaeopteryx a bird, despite the fact that everyone (except
>>>>you) does just that?

>>>The point is that one cannot claim that Archaeopteryx is a bird simply
>>>because the dictionary says so, under 'Archaeopteryx'. In other words,
>>>this is not a usage issue regarding 'Archaeopteryx', but a
>>>classification issue. The usage issue would be regarding 'bird'.

>>I wish you would stop saying "the point is". You seldom have any
>>coherent point, and the point you claim to be making is seldom the same
>>from one moment to the next.

>>Anyway, what you say above is a restatement of the obvious and is not
>>under contention. The usage issue *is* regarding "bird". Everyone else
>>in the world thinks that "bird" includes Archaeopteryx, and this is
>>shown by their use of "bird" when referring to Archaeopteryx. The
>>dictionary is one example of this, no better and no worse than thousands
>>of other such examples. The question is why you reject this common
>>usage, when you claim elsewhere that common usage is the only guide.

> Because 'bird', like the names of all common modern animals, refers to
> modern animals in their CURRENT state of development, even if those
> are 'primitive' evolutionarily speaking (hagfish, etc.).

Please present some justification for that claim.

> Ancient
> species that are transitional or far less differentiated than modern
> ones create linguistic refernce problems. Do you call Miacidae or
> Viverravidae dogs or cats? If not, why not?
> Of course not, because they were NEITHER.

I see you're still having problems with that "groups within groups"
concept. The reason we don't call these extinct groups dogs or cats is
that the latter two groups are much more circumscribed. However, we do
call them both carnivores and mammals.

That's NOT the point! They are not cats or dogs!

Similarly, we don't call
Archaeopteryx a pigeon or a duck, but we do call it a bird.

'Bird' is like 'cat' or 'dog', isn't it? There are many species of
felines and canines.

Are you really unaware that there are many species of duck (nearly all anatids are ducks) and of pigeon (in the broader usage all columbids - other than dodos and solitaires if Raphidae is sunk in Columbidae - are pigeons)? There are more species of ducks and pigeons than there are of felines (cats, felids) and canines (dogs, canids).

Or are you just introducing a red-herring.

I note, by the way, that you have stopped appealing to usage and have
attempted some kind of logical justification (lame as it may be). Does
this mean that usage is no longer important?

No, it does not mean that. We are talking about two different sorts of
things. 'Bird' refers to modern animals, as that is what it was
deigned to do. We have to use another kind of language to refer to
more primitive animals in a scientific context.



--
Alias Ernest Major

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Chez Watt Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... to Archaeopteryx, someone says "this bird", that's usage. ... incidentally) it's correct to call Archaeopteryx a bird. ... meaning of vernacular words is established by custom; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chez Watt Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... to Archaeopteryx, someone says "this bird", that's usage. ... incidentally) it's correct to call Archaeopteryx a bird. ... There is NO vernacular term for Archaeopteryx, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chez Watt Re: Common ancestor between man and ape
    ... majority of the people who use the term. ... to Archaeopteryx, someone says "this bird", that's usage. ... incidentally) it's correct to call Archaeopteryx a bird. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: No flightless Insecta?
    ... You were shown a dictionary that caled Archie a bird. ... It is NOT part of the 'meaning' of 'Archaeopteryx', as John Harshman ... matters of fact, not matters of usage. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: No flightless Insecta?
    ... You were shown a dictionary that caled Archie a bird. ... It is NOT part of the 'meaning' of 'Archaeopteryx', as John Harshman ... matters of fact, not matters of usage. ...
    (talk.origins)