New paper by moi 12 Aug 2007 I have a review of the centenary festschrift for Mayr, published by the National Academies of Science, in the latest Biology and Philosophy here. I worked pretty hard on this one, so it’s more than your average dashed off review article… Hey, Jody; Fitch, Walter M.; Ayala, Francisco J., eds. 2005. Systematics and the origin of species: On Ernst Mayr’s 100th Anniversary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Pages: 367 + xiii. ISBN: 0-309-09536-0 Ecology and Biodiversity Evolution Species and systematics
Book Darwin worship, and demonisation 6 Jan 2009 I make no secret that I admire Darwin as a historical figure very much, but I recently submitted a paper for an open access journal for science teachers at secondary level named Resonance, entitled “Not Saint Darwin”. I was motivated by some of the rather uncritical, unhistorical and unnecessary examples… Read More
Cognition 50 words for snow 2: or, the economics of cultural categories 24 Sep 20171 Mar 2019 Series Conceptual confusion The economics of cultural categories What are phenomena? What counts as sociocultural? Species Constructing phenomena Explanations and phenomena Humans evolved in a world where knowing whether an animal was an antelope or a lion was essential for their survival: they could eat the antelope, and they could… Read More
Creationism and Intelligent Design Random thoughts about God and evolution 27 Jun 2010 As some may know, I am writing a couple of book chapters to try to sell a proposal to a publisher for The Nature of Classification, a book I am coauthoring with Malte Ebach. I bring the philosophy and he brings the knowledge. However, this means I am not devoting… Read More
He is a leading geneticist at Rutgers University, and the author of an important book on species concetps.
I’m reading the Hey book right now to prepare for my comps this fall. Good job John, just took a look at it. What do you mean by the latter half of this quote? But the project to harness systematics, which is very much the poor cousin of biological disciplines, is a good idea, although we might be a bit less enthusiastic about bioinformatics than we were a few years ago, given the lack of generally useful results. I agree with the first half, but I am puzzled by the second half. From what I hear on the list-serves and other news, the big push right now is in bioinformatics as related to biogeography, systematics, and biodiversity. In fact, 3 postdocs were just advertised at the Field Museum, all some aspect of bioinformatics. Granted it has been a bit slow to take off, but are their results “generally useless”? Can you point to any specific examples? As a disclaimer, I am not a bioninformaticist in any way. I’m old fashioned morphology, ecology and some molecular systemacist.
Note that I did not say that bioinformatics is “generally useless”, but that it lacks “generally useful” results. The one does not imply the other. Bioinformatics was launched as the new hope of biology – allowing us to deal with large data sets (particularly in molecular biology, such as microarray data) and find useful results in the morass of data. It simply doesn’t do that, nor should a sober expectation have thought it would. Biology is massively interconnected and also massively noisy, and there are no simple solutions. Just as molecular systematics had some success but didn’t change the conceptual issues, only the amount of data to be analysed, bioinformatics has had some good results, and a lot of disappointment.