| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Paul Jeffery's comment illustrates my point nicely. It is incredibly
frustrating for those who are interested in the stratigraphic answer to a
particular question (or the car part for a particular make and model) to
have to wade through nomenclatural minutiae. With all respect I really
feel that statements like the one below...
>Likewise non-palaeontologists cannot grizzle if they present us
>with little mounds of rock-chips from a borehole in the middle of some god-
>forsaken tract and ask us to read the entrails for them.
...badly miss the point. The simple fact is that they do "grizzle." I
think they have every right to grizzle. And I believe it is evident that
they are currently expressing their grizzly state of mind by outsourceing
their paleontology to laid off consultants and students at bargain basement
prices. Meanwhile university and government research grant administrators
are seriously beginning to wonder whether non-environmental earth sciences
are worth the trouble it takes to maintain them in their ivory tower
havens. Our science isn't hurting us. Our image is and to a large extent
that image is conveyed by how well we communicate with others.
Jere's earlier point about keeping complaints about the code and Linnean
nomenclature separate is correct, but, then again, the code is based on
Linnean nomenclature to such an extent that much of the former makes little
sense unless the latter is accepted. Regardless, paleontology's problems
are not entirely the fault of nomenclature. But our nomenclature
oftentimes does seem to hinder rather than promote our ability to
communicate. Certainly this is the case with the non-paleo. professionals
in the oil AND environmental industries with whom we must communicate
because they "buy" our product. As was pointed out in several previous
PaleoNet postings, however, nomenclature is also the source of confusion
and needless controversy within our own specialty areas. True, other
sciences have these problems as well. Nevertheless there isn't much
argument among physicists about what an electron is, or among chemists
about the definition of NaCl, or even among biologists about the
characteristics of a coatimundi. Paleontology differs from these
disciplines (including most of biology) in that our fundamental units (=
species) are irreducibly historical entities that are not the same through
time. The basic problem, as I see it, is that we seem conceptually locked
into a classification/nomenclatural system that was originally developed
without this fundamental attribute in mind. It is a poor workman that
blames his tools. But, by the same token, progress is often made through
the development of new tools and that cannot take place until it is
admitted that the contents of our present toolbox are inadequate. With the
power we now have to manipulate data structures (as was pointed out by Una
Smith) I just can't help but feel that the information development tools
necessary to finally bring our nomenclatural problems under control already
exist. All that is required is for us (= the paleo. profession) to develop
the required expertise along with the collective will to use them.
Jere's point about continuity in a down-sized mode is well-taken. But, I
don't think we have to be either happy or satisfied with the current trends
just as I don't think that we have to be either happy or satisfied with the
current nomenclature. It seems far too easy to just throw up one's hands
and say, "This is the best we can do!" Jere's right in that
paleontologists do seem to get obsessed over philosophical issues. [Note:
though I don't think paleontologists spend any more time complaining about
the state of their science than others.] However, in this case I believe
there is ample reason to rethink our ideas about nomenclature and
classification, just as we are rethinking our ideas about paleontology's
role within science as a whole. Certainly we have nothing to lose by
engaging in discussions of this sort and (potentially at least) there is
much to be gained. However, since this looks like a potentially long-lived
discussion, and since there may be PaleoNet subscribers who would like the
option as to whether or not they continue participating or listening in, I
propose that we move this debate over to DataBaseNet.
Norm MacLeod
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman MacLeod
Senior Research Fellow
N.MacLeod@nhm.ac.uk (Internet)
N.MacLeod@uk.ac.nhm (Janet)
Address: Dept. of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD
Office Phone: 071-938-9006
Dept. FAX: 071-938-9277
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial index: