|
Re: The Real Place of Fuzziness in AnthropologyLen Piotrowski (lpiotrow@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)Wed, 14 Aug 1996 23:27:37 GMT
In article <32124DD5.213C@best.com> Joel and Lynn Gazis-Sax <gazissax@best.com> writes:
>[snip]
>Taking this out of alt.pagan.
Oh, what a relief ...
>Len Piotrowski wrote:
>> >Suppose we take two genetically identical rats, keeping one in the lab and
>Eeeep! You're right. Well, we'll plant an identical chip in the one in the lab,
Hey, there is no identity, because of Chaos theory, duh!
>>
>Not any more! I put a chip in the lab rat!
Oh, now your chip is full of scientific instruments that measure - everything!
>> > What do we get? Two identical
>That's where the notion of phenotype comes into play, my friend.
Funny, you don't act like my friend. In fact, you're not playing fair at all!
>Didn't they teach you about those?
Who "they?" "Those" what? Me wonder?
>
>No, I would say that you haven't a clue if you don't understand what
I understand what you're getting at. I just happen to think it tells us
>You are looking only at the level of DNA and declaring
Most mistaken!
>However, when we look at the sum total of the animals,
You have no idea what you'll find or how any possible similarities or
>The outdoor rat will have developed patterns of behavior not shown by the
Boggles, eh! Chaos Theory tells you all that?
>This is what is meant by /phenotype/.
Phenotype is patterned behavior? Start now, and you may avoid some real fire.
>> >To say that chaos theory means anything goes is quite wrong and a common
>*rolls his eyes*
... craps, you loose. Just jokin'. ; )
>> >[rehash about clones, etc., snipped]
>Genotype vs. phenotype. Look up the word phenotype. It will be a useful
I guess we can't all be wizards, eh Joel? I'll try and keep up from now on.
>> >
>I can't say that I am much impressed with your response. You still
Believe me I've got it, I just dropped it like a bad smell.
>Here's another take on the argument, using examples which normal
I guess that leaves me out - can't even get that phenotype thingy! Can't wait
>The main argument for classification is that it makes life easier
Extraordinary! Thought it had something to do with systematics of problem
>By using a scientific system soundly based on
Cool! I'm sure Dunnell will love to hear about that! Have you explained his
>But by its very nature, there are going to be a fair number of cases
Oh, oh, oh, you're going to fast! The nature of classification. Shearing those
>Or else, the classification system must be
Classes must fit nature? Or else ... what? Can't classify anything unnatural,
> Or else, as often happens, the
How convenient! Explains the invention of the trash can. You know, all those
>(Chaos theory got its start when some people tried to observe some
... no, you're kidding!
>The map is not the territory as Korsinski (sp.) tells us.
... no kidding!
> Having the hill
... no kidding!
> And some maps are more useful
... no kidding!
>Topographic maps were an improvement on earlier maps because
... OKay, I'll stop exercising!
>By their very nature, classificatory systems are both useful and misleading.
Wait! What happened to the maps?
>They are useful because they can help us to predict things that will happen
So, all science has to do is classify - everything, right?
>Beyond a certain period, the accuracy of our predictions
... something has taken a nose dive before we've even reached that point
>Beyond that certain period, scientists can be only marginally
Which one was that, now? The Period of Perfect Classification of
>And thus one of the
So sad! Couldn't we put a puppy in this story somewhere?
> Beyond us will
Beyond our period, or within our phenotype? I'm a little fuzzy on that.
>Perhaps we can push it out a little farther. But how far?
As far as the mind can bungle.
>The struggle of science is always to make a better model of the universe.
Plastic parts help. But don't spill glue on those classes.
>The
Don't get too close, you'll roll off that period.
> We live in
Huh! Don't tell me you've classified everything already. Thought we had some
>Our building blocks, such as DNA, are themselves constructed on
Don't worry. You'll get over it.
> Yet in this chaos, things come together and we can perceive
Chaos parts, and the Heavens were separated from the Earth. So ended the First
>They fit well enough together to produce a human mind.
... Amen!
>And
The World is the Ocean - I begin to see the Flow and Objects! My eyes are
>And as for the creatures in the ocean,
Uh, - at the period?
> With larger organisms, such
... and the sea becomes them, yea!
>Consider the possibility of less
The boundary between sanity and kookdom, yea!
>Again, let us return to the issue of race in anthropology.
Huh! Now I'm confused ... yea!
>On what basis
Nature? Sugarcube castles?
> Where do we stop identifying different races.
The Ocean? The Period?
>The system of classification demands exact factors be called into account,
S M Ryan's "sets whose shortest decision procedure is the
>Where do you stop? Who decides?
The periodic ocean of phenotypic plankton races! Chaos Decides!
>Could there be a better model out there?
Oh I dunno'! Do you care?
>Chaos theory might be the start
Yep, I know just what you mean. (Yawn!)
>Those of us with social science backgrounds have
Darned, pesky facts. Can't seem to get rid of 'em!
>Understanding
Certainly, understanding this post is ...
>Our subjects talk back, they tell us when they
Some of us can't seem to hear the true message!
>This perspective puts a different light
How true! Next to this explication, why even Sea Peoples are helpless midgets.
Cheers ol' plankton bro,
--Lenny__
"If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem."
|