My latest paper 15 Feb 2013 Science & Education, February 2013, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 221-240 Biological Essentialism and the Tidal Change of Natural Kinds John S. Wilkins Abstract The vision of natural kinds that is most common in the modern philosophy of biology, particularly with respect to the question whether species and other taxa are natural kinds, is based on a revision of the notion by Mill in A System of Logic. However, there was another conception that Whewell had previously captured well, which taxonomists have always employed, of kinds as being types that need not have necessary and sufficient characters and properties, or essences. These competing views employ different approaches to scientific methodologies: Mill’s class-kinds are not formed by induction but by deduction, while Whewell’s type-kinds are inductive. More recently, phylogenetic kinds (clades, or monophyletic-kinds) are inductively projectible, and escape Mill’s strictures. Mill’s version represents a shift in the notions of kinds from the biological to the physical sciences. Epistemology Metaphysics Natural Classification Systematics
Epistemology Science is not a religion, nor does it involve faith 15 Nov 201115 Nov 2011 Suppose you had a friend who saw the world in terms solely of his football team. If you are discussing politics, he refers to the boardroom of the team; if you are talking morality, the on-field ethics of his favourites stars. Now you start to talk about science, and he… Read More
Evolution When do species begin? 11 Jun 200922 Jun 2018 Last night I attended a talk by Alexander Bird of Bristol on the metaphysics of natural kinds. I confess that a lot of it struck me as largely irrelevant to the actuality of the science as the level of metaphysics here, involving possible worlds and necessity, not to mention semantic… Read More
Biology Evopsychopathy 1. Conditions for sociobiology 6 Dec 201218 Sep 2017 Well I better put up or shut up, I guess. Here are my ruminations, excretions, and expressions regarding evolutionary psychology, or, as we might call it, evopsychopathy. I am, as I have said, a born again sociobiologist, so I guess that makes me an evopychopath. Let’s get a few things… Read More
These are tangentially relevant musings, but a blog post consisting of an article abstract arguably invites that. A while ago I wondered — and have never got around to asking — about the following. Suppose we use x|y to mean the most recent common ancestor of x and y, and {x} to mean the clade descended from x. So the clade consisting of everything descended from the nearest common ancestor of humans and chocolate would be referred to as {homo|theobroma}. Or {theobroma|homo} if you prefer to put the important genus first. Is anything like this done (I know nothing), and is there any point? The obvious use is to avoid privileging certain clades by naming them, but at the cost of having a multitude of synonymous formulations per clade.
There is such a convention. A + B is used to mean “the common ancestor of species A and species B and all its descendants”, and A > B is used to mean “all species more closely related to species A than to species B”. Though it isn’t generally used in the way you suggest but as a convenient shorthand way of representing the phylogenetic definition of a group.
One reason for not doing what the Dragon suggests is that it would lead to an explosion of names to memorise, which would be constantly revised as phylogenies shift (should we have a name for the LCA of roses and eagles, for example?). The convention John mentions is free of that difficulty, since it is clear from context and need not be remembered outside a paper that uses it for a particular purpose.
I will have to finish reading the paper tommorow. I got to this bit. “and those which resemble them as strongly as they resemble one another.” then got distracted and started laughing. The vision will not leave my brain. ” An ancient philofopher faid, Man was a “two legged animal without feathers”- upon which his rival Sage had a Cock plucked bare, and fet him down in the fchool before all the difciples, as a Philofophic Man”
The story of the plucked rooster is in Diogenes Laërtius, told of Diogenes of Sinope. Plato is reported to have added “with broad nails” to his “featherless biped” definition.
When I look at the depth, contexts and multiple subjects that surround H.O.P, H.O.S. and science itself and contrast the great abyss with my somewhat limited knowledge: I can identify entirely with that small and somewhat startled bird. A somewhat apt mascot.
The paper I promised to write for a journal on humor sprung effortless to life out of last nights laughter and started to take form. Pleasing way to start a subject.