Opinion piece "Information Trees & the classification of Life"
- Kimberellas Anthropocene
- Feb 11, 2024
- 3 min read
first published Facebook 23/09/11 11:51 EST
Woken up by the storm and still pondering pea flowers, tables, Europe and the world.
Disclaimer I have no formal tertiary education in science.
FB is possibly not the right forum for brain aches.
My present problem: language is history, it implies meaning and relationships. Taxonomic trees and language should be an index system for information retrieval. The Dewey system for example struggles to make meaningful categories of new knowledge (animation texts for example, housed under design, computers or etc.). There is a history of debates around the periodic table of elements for example and naming of elements. Mendeleev system was conceptually new and predictive, new elements were discovered to fill in deliberately included blanks. My issue is twofold: regarding ongoing use of Latin for categories is opaque and Eurocentric, few learn Latin, and although it's dead therefore static seems a poor argument for continued use. Why not use Aramaic or a non-European language, or better yet, an abstract but measurable notation such as mathematics. Secondly, debates around phenotypic and genetic classifications seem to be mired in minutiae of accuracy/access, as well as rooted in different conceptions of population and evolution.
However the diagram should be drawn, for taxonomic purposes it should similarly be rooted in something predictive(ie. Version of process or pattern phylogenetic studies). This may not be presently possible however it should be proveable. The use of Latin for the branch index system of life may itself be opaque and is structured around understanding of life being an information system that is generational. Therefore, if people are rethinking the use of both Latin for more comprehensible names, and genetics assuming the breadth and depth of these databases should increase (and in light of forensic uses for genetic mapping), a classification system which is language neutral and responds to relatively new technologies must be present in the underlying means for distinguishing this data?
Either way Latin is not accessible to common people like me. Furthermore, distinction between things should not be misled by anthropomorphic tendencies. I'm not suggesting changing one thing, I'm brain fart suggesting change the lot. The current system denotes relationships predicated in behavioral, phenotypic and imperfect DNA classification systems. I believe humans and chimps, both, phenotypically and genetically, related by a predictive idea is possible.We are at least commonly thought to be part Neanderthal and possibly a whole range of others through interspecies data exchange. Darwin was easily lampooned for this association. Language does carry history and association as a generational information system. We use animal however as vernacular for everyday behaviors in our lives (eg. "You're an animal mate"). Fish are only now being appreciated as sentient life with behavior we can at least identify with as humans. Goldfish have 2 second memories is at least observably wrong to a four-year child staring at a tank in an aquarium. I'm just wondering if the whole classification system of the life sciences needs some rethought? Mind you I know what I don't know, which is this area, but bothers me nonetheless. Why are fish perceived to be non-animal like or why are humans often thought not to be. Language and information systems are history, but not always useful. Perhaps it's time for an update
Any philosophy of sciences, paleontologists or science academics people help me understand what I'm misunderstanding here!
Futher Reading:
Comments