[Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms"
John Grehan
calabar.john at gmail.com
Fri Jul 10 20:27:30 CDT 2015
2015
I find myself in agreement with Stephen's comments about consensus. He
makes my point very well. There may be consensus among the authors of the
article, but of course that does not mean that this consensus is shared by
all. Consensus does mean everyone, and as Stephen notes, the word is often
used when in fact it is only being applied to a majority.
John Grehan
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>
wrote:
> There are certainly big problems with the idea of "consensus". Given that
> all sorts of people are using all sorts of classifications for all sorts of
> reasons, isn't a "consensus" just going to deliver some meaningless "one
> size fits all"? Also, the result will depend on who is included/excluded
> from the "consensus" group. Theoretically, "consensus" doesn't give due
> weight to the opinions of the most intelligent people, because (by very
> definition) they are a minority! Hence "consensus" tends to drag things
> down to the lowest common denominator. This isn't always a problem, but it
> certainly can be.
>
> Stephen
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Sat, 11/7/15, John Grehan <calabar.john at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A Higher Level
> Classification of All Living Organisms"
> To: "Richard Pyle" <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>, "taxacom" <
> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Received: Saturday, 11 July, 2015, 10:59 AM
>
> Yes I was implying (explicitly) that
> the authors of the paper appear to
> have a definition of science (assuming that the
> classification was being
> represented as science) where science is a 'consensus' of
> opinion
> compromising conflicting information. When one comes up with
> a compromise
> of the sort it does not appear to be a process that is
> attempting to
> reflect reality (whatever that might be), but just a
> compromise between
> different opinions. A good example of this is how so-called
> ecological
> areas were defined in New Zealand (Under the Protected
> Natural Areas
> program, and with lots of money to boot) according to
> compromises over
> different opinions about where the boundaries between the
> areas were to be
> drawn (said boundaries having no reality anyway, hence the
> ability to
> 'compromise').
>
> Perhaps I am being awfully presumptuous, but if it is
> presumptuous to
> regard consensus opinions as outside science then so be it.
>
> John Grehan
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Richard Pyle <deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> wrote:
>
> > The “nature of reality” is sufficiently vague that
> it could be interpreted
> > just as broadly as “science” can be.
> >
> >
> >
> > My only point is that the outer boundaries of
> “science” are not well
> > defined. Controlled experimentation following the
> scientific method is
> > squarely within the realm of science, and most would
> argue that things like
> > Astrology are pretty clearly at the very
> outskirts. In between those is a
> > very broad range of activities, such as phylogenetics,
> taxonomy,
> > nomenclature, informatics, and a whole host of other
> things that may or may
> > not conform to some particular person’s definition of
> “science”.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your comment, to which I was responding, seemed to
> imply that we all
> > (including the authors of the paper) share a definition
> of science that
> > would unambiguously exclude their paper from
> “science” (i.e., the notion
> > that the authors self-evidently “admit” that their
> work is not science).
> > That seemed awfully presumptuous of you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Aloha,
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* John Grehan [mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com]
> > *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2015 9:52 AM
> > *To:* Richard Pyle
> >
> > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A
> Higher Level
> > Classification of All Living Organisms"
> >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps, but what do you think is incorrect about the
> one I gave? Are you
> > saying consensus opinion is science?
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Richard Pyle <
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > We all like to believe our own definition of
> “science” is the correct one.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sigh….
> >
> >
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* John Grehan [mailto:calabar.john at gmail.com]
> > *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2015 9:23 AM
> > *To:* Richard Pyle
> > *Cc:* TAXACOM
> >
> >
> > *Subject:* Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al. "A
> Higher Level
> > Classification of All Living Organisms"
> >
> >
> >
> > At least the quotes show that the authors admit their
> work not be science
> > (if science is understood to be about the nature of
> reality beyond
> > 'consensus' opinion).
> >
> >
> >
> > John Grehan
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Richard Pyle <
> deepreef at bishopmuseum.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm.... I've been deliberately quiet on this
> thread as well. I
> > appreciate the viewpoints of Ken and others in terms of
> holophyly, the
> > value of acknowledging paraphyletic taxa through
> Linnean nomenclature,
> > etc. This is all good philosophical grit, and I
> enjoy the intellectual
> > stimulation as much as anyone.
> >
> > However, this thread began (and remains?) relevant to
> the PLoS ONE
> > publication of Ruggiero et al., which provides a
> generalized **CONSENSUS
> > CLASSIFICATION**. Perhaps there is some
> misunderstanding on what is meant
> > by this term (and the associated classification)?
> Anyone who read as far
> > as the abstract of this paper should at least know
> that:
> >
> > "This classification is neither phylogenetic nor
> evolutionary but instead
> > represents a consensus view that accommodates taxonomic
> choices and
> > practical compromises among diverse expert opinions,
> public usages, and
> > conflicting evidence about the boundaries between taxa
> and the ranks of
> > major taxa, including kingdoms."
> >
> > And:
> >
> > "Beyond its immediate use as a management tool for the
> CoL and ITIS
> > (Integrated Taxonomic Information System), it is
> immediately valuable as a
> > reference for taxonomic and biodiversity research, as a
> tool for societal
> > communication, and as a classificatory “backbone”
> for biodiversity
> > databases, museum collections, libraries, and
> textbooks."
> >
> > In this context, it is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT that the
> subtaxa within a taxon
> > are alphabetically arranged! It is absolutely NOT
> intended to reflect any
> > sort of "naturalness" in patterns of evolution.
> Yes, it probably does
> > kinda- sorta- happen to reflect modern views of
> evolutionary relationships
> > (otherwise there wouldn't be much consensus behind
> it). But its function
> > is to serve as a tool for informatics and generalized
> (i.e., highly
> > simplified) organizational representation of life on
> Earth. As such, it is
> > overwhelmingly valuable to the people for whom it was
> intended (see second
> > quote above).
> >
> > Aloha,
> > Rich
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf
> > > Of Richard Zander
> > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 7:51 AM
> > > To: TAXACOM
> > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al.
> "A Higher Level
> > > Classification of All Living Organisms"
> > >
> > > Maybe now is the time to add my perspective,
> backing up that of Ken.
> > >
> > > Phylogenetic classification is artificial.
> Artificial classifications
> > use one set of
> > > traits to group taxa, e.g., molecular races,
> shared traits (only).
> > Artificial
> > > classifications are repeatable, yet repeatability
> is not the only
> > requirement of
> > > science. Alphabetization is repeatable.
> > >
> > > Principles of phylogenetic classification are
> artificial. Some
> > principles include
> > > strict monophyly (so long Aves), putting known
> taxa at the top of a tree
> > of
> > > relationships ("tree-thinking") rather than in the
> tree when known (stem-
> > > thinking), ignoring the probability of extinct
> paraphyly that casts
> > doubt on
> > > molecular trees, ignoring the evolutionary
> importance of autapomorphies,
> > > asserting that only zero length branches imply a
> surviving ancestral
> > taxon,
> > > pretending that a cladogram is "the evidence"
> (when it is only some
> > > evidence) and evolutionary theory is mere
> narrative . . . you can
> > probably
> > > think of more phylogenetic principles of
> classification that do violence
> > to
> > > evolutionary theory developed only after long
> struggle with artificial
> > > classifiers of the past.
> > >
> > > Classification by phylogenetic principles is
> actually quite
> > unprincipled, and
> > > serves only to preserve a modification of older
> methods of numerical
> > > taxonomy.
> > >
> > > Richard
> > >
> > >
> > > -------
> > > Richard H. Zander
> > > Missouri Botanical Garden – 4344 Shaw Blvd. –
> St. Louis – Missouri –
> > 63110 –
> > > USA richard.zander at mobot.org
> Web sites:
> > > http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm
> and
> > > http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Taxacom [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu]
> On Behalf
> > > Of Nico Franz
> > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 12:16 PM
> > > To: TAXACOM
> > > Subject: Re: [Taxacom] New paper: Ruggiero et al.
> "A Higher Level
> > > Classification of All Living Organisms"
> > >
> > > Computational logic? Nico
> > >
> > > Reasoning over taxonomic change:
> > >
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118247
> > > Taxonomy - for computers:
> > > http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/07/09/022145
> > >
> > > -----
> > > Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015
> > > From: Kenneth Kinman
> > >
> > > Hi Stephen,
> > > Logically, we must
> remember that [...]
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched
> at:
> > > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > >
> > > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Taxacom Mailing List
> > > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched
> at:
> > > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> > >
> > > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> > The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> > http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>
>
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list