Forums
Zamorak vs. Zamorakianism
Quick find code: 341-342-42-65892825
Anyways, a the biggest problem with taxonomy in my opinion is it's inability to account for nominalism.
Consider this: During your day to day life you perceive many individual things, tables, chairs, people. Now all those individual things are made up of smaller things like molecules. Those molecules are made up of smaller things and so on and so on; even past the quantum level. Now no matter the level you go all things have differences between them. For example, even quarks have very very very small variations in size, mass, and place. Presumably you could continue to dissect things to infinity. (Though string theory suggest that there is a limit to how much you could dissect things. That being said, even the "strings" are all different from one another because they have different place, which is a property.) No level of things will ever have exactly the same attributes/properties. Thus, when you move out to a macroview, the view that you naturally hold when you perceive things in the universe, all the things you perceive potentially have an infinite amount of variation in between them.
With an infinite amount of variation between all perceived things no things could be considered the same thing.
However, the human brain, likely/possibly an ability developed through natural selection because it obviously has some evolutionary advantage, arbitrary ignores the infinite amount of variation between certain things when it finds it advantageous to treat them as functionally equivalent. For example, even though there is an infinite amount of differences between Rali and I (Thank God
) your brain will still classify us both as the same type of thing, that being human classification.
However, it is clearly not right to classify anything as the same thing as any other thing when there is an infinite amount of variation between them.
That is why I don't like classifications in science. Though I admit it is required for practical use lol
Consider this: During your day to day life you perceive many individual things, tables, chairs, people. Now all those individual things are made up of smaller things like molecules. Those molecules are made up of smaller things and so on and so on; even past the quantum level. Now no matter the level you go all things have differences between them. For example, even quarks have very very very small variations in size, mass, and place. Presumably you could continue to dissect things to infinity. (Though string theory suggest that there is a limit to how much you could dissect things. That being said, even the "strings" are all different from one another because they have different place, which is a property.) No level of things will ever have exactly the same attributes/properties. Thus, when you move out to a macroview, the view that you naturally hold when you perceive things in the universe, all the things you perceive potentially have an infinite amount of variation in between them.
With an infinite amount of variation between all perceived things no things could be considered the same thing.
However, the human brain, likely/possibly an ability developed through natural selection because it obviously has some evolutionary advantage, arbitrary ignores the infinite amount of variation between certain things when it finds it advantageous to treat them as functionally equivalent. For example, even though there is an infinite amount of differences between Rali and I (Thank God
) your brain will still classify us both as the same type of thing, that being human classification.
However, it is clearly not right to classify anything as the same thing as any other thing when there is an infinite amount of variation between them.
That is why I don't like classifications in science. Though I admit it is required for practical use lol
22-Mar-2017 21:43:21
Rifleavenger
said
:
I also bristle at the idea that only physics (and chemistry?) can count as 'real science.'
You can count your sciences however you want lol. I am not prepared to make an argument for what is a real and not real science. I was overstepping my bounds a bit by not calling it a real science, mainly because I like knocking taxonomy.
Raleirosen said :
Cthris said :
But beyond that little cheek I keep my judgement suspended. This is why I don't take you seriously; you're asking for something that you don't seem to think is even possible.
I only ask because everyone else talks like it's something they know and can prove. Also you are right about the genealogy thing, I did show my ignorance again. Which is exactly why I need to ask questions.
Raleirosen said :
Cthris said :
Lol because labeling all the breeds of dogs as the same species but excluding coyotes and wolves makes tons of sense, is well defined and not arbitrary at all
You're not a biologist, so forgive me for dismissing your opinion out of hand. Though if you think you have a good argument, feel free to write a paper and submit it to a journal.
I wouldn't dare say I have a good argument. It seems I know very little about much of anything.
I also bristle at the idea that only physics (and chemistry?) can count as 'real science.'
You can count your sciences however you want lol. I am not prepared to make an argument for what is a real and not real science. I was overstepping my bounds a bit by not calling it a real science, mainly because I like knocking taxonomy.
Raleirosen said :
Cthris said :
But beyond that little cheek I keep my judgement suspended. This is why I don't take you seriously; you're asking for something that you don't seem to think is even possible.
I only ask because everyone else talks like it's something they know and can prove. Also you are right about the genealogy thing, I did show my ignorance again. Which is exactly why I need to ask questions.
Raleirosen said :
Cthris said :
Lol because labeling all the breeds of dogs as the same species but excluding coyotes and wolves makes tons of sense, is well defined and not arbitrary at all
You're not a biologist, so forgive me for dismissing your opinion out of hand. Though if you think you have a good argument, feel free to write a paper and submit it to a journal.
I wouldn't dare say I have a good argument. It seems I know very little about much of anything.
22-Mar-2017 21:47:51 - Last edited on 22-Mar-2017 21:56:29 by Cthris
Quick find code: 341-342-42-65892825 Back to Top