New Homo erectus Skull Shakes up Palaeontology (page 13)

I wrote: When Cofty ask if it is a fact we have 23 cromosomes then sure, you can find a way to add context to that such that the statement becomes technically false. But if we dont want to delibrately misunderstand each other what the statement mean is quite clearly roughly "with the popular definition of chromosome the median of the number of chromosome pairs observed in humans is 23"

Well. So with respect to that statement (it is a fact humans have 23 chromosomes), you feel it is:

"it's woefully inaccurate for someone engaged in genetic research on mosaicism, since they know the answer is not so simple; they'd be unable to conduct research if they approached their work with the childish understanding that the answer was all there was to know on the question"

However the "woefull inaccuracy" is, as far as i can tell, simply related to the statement not containing a prefix like: "the typical human".

So here is the issue: I feel what you are doing there is to assume that since the statement can be read in a technically false manner, the person who is making it must also be comitted to that meaning, and therefore it is inaccurate and that should be pointed out.

But if we add the assumption the person who is talking is communicating to an audience who understand almost anything in biology is subject to exceptions, and I certainly hope you give Cofty that much credit to be aware of this degree or not (an issue that seems must be raised very often), I dont really think there is any reason to say anyone is doing anything wrong (or woefully inaccurate) by such a statement; scientific communication would be very slow and boring to read and i personally find "humans have two arms" to be superior (also in a scientific context) to: "the median of the number of arms on humans are 2".

cofty

Everything that Bohm said - I just have no more patience to discuss it with somebody who determined to misunderstand.

Life is too short to deal with pedantry.

bohm

I want to add, suppose you saw a slide with a table like this:

Common Name	Genus and Species	Diploid Chromosome Number
Buffalo	Bison bison	60
Cat	Felis catus	38
Cattle	Bos taurus, B. indicus	60
Dog	Canis familiaris	78
Donkey	E. asinus	62
Goat	Capra hircus	60
Horse	Equus caballus	64
Human	Homo sapiens	46
Pig	Sus scrofa	38
Sheep	Ovis aries	54

the absolute last place I would ever expect someone to point out it is not accurate to say sheep has 54 chromosomes because some might have less and some might have more would be at a scientific conference of any sorts.

jgnat

May have as many as 1,260 diploid number of chromosomes:

Adder's Tongue

So it appears that number of chromosomes is not directly related to complexity.

cantleave

I have stopped trying to reason with the pedants on this site.

adamah

Cofty said-

Life is too short to deal with pedantry.

Then you are likely not as scientifically-minded as you might tell yourself (and ironically even less so than SBF). Hence you likely don't possess the mind-set or patience needed for carrying out medical research, since the entire premise of conducting medical research is discovering WHY subtle differences exist, and finding answers often requires a meticulous attention to even seemingly-minor details in order to avoid introducing sources of error into the experiment.

"Pedantry" (as you describe it, as if it's a perjorative) is actually a skilled trait to have in scientific research; attention to details is important (or perhaps you prefer a cardiac surgeon who 'wings it' and improvises as he goes?). That's why guys like Richard Dawkins are such rare birds in science, being able to effectively communicate in terms that don't confuse the layperson, yet still able to interact in 'doctor-speak' with their colleagues. Hence scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, etc are able to serve as 'translators' for their 'pedantic' science colleagues, but don't let the prevalence of media darlings fool you due to their media over-representation.

Bohm said-

the absolute last place I would ever expect someone to point out it is not accurate to say sheep has 54 chromosomes because some might have less and some might have more would be at a scientific conference of any sorts.

And that's because any scientist worth a damn would look at the chart to determine what it is trying to accomplish (in this case, it's comparing the number of chromosomes of various species, likely within the context of a general biology high school textbook; it's NOT talking about variations which exist within a single species, eg abnormality of chromosomal defects in humans, which is a HUGE TOPIC in itself, and would be used in a college-level biology course in genetics, or human genetics. Some scientists spend their entire CAREERS researching to find a cure to a single chromosomal defect which most people have never even heard of before, eg cri du chat syndrome, and some chart that appears in a doctoral-level textbook would be overkill for a high school textbook).

That goes back to my point about needing to consider the context in which the information is presented, since anyone who's had any experience with looking at charts/graphs knows to first determine what the information is attempting to represent.

Adam

cofty

So much I want to say - so little motivation to bother.

bohm

adamah:

And that's because any scientist worth a damn would look at the chart to determine what it is trying to accomplish (in this case, it's comparing the number of chromosomes of various species, likely within the context of a general biology high school textbook;

And ordinary people unable to look at the chart or hear a statement like "a human has 23 chromosomes" and understand what its trying to accomplish?

it's NOT talking about variations which exist within a single species, eg abnormality of chromosomal defects in humans, which is a HUGE TOPIC in itself,

no ofcourse not. Like if i said: "a human has two arms" I would not be talking about the variation in the number of arms found in humans. I would be conveying an ordinary fact about human anatomy and both laypersons and scientists would easily be able to understand there are humans with more or less arms than 2. Imagine how painful it would be to read an article on comparative anatomy and every number or feature would need to be prefixed with: "the mode of the number of tails on pigs is 1".

That goes back to my point about needing to consider the context in which the information is presented, since anyone who's had any experience with looking at charts/graphs knows to first determine what the information is attempting to represent.

...which is my point. when someone is saying: " a human has 23 chromosomes" consider the context and dont say "yah but if the context was abnormalities and chromosomal defects THEN....".

bohm

Cofty: Life is too short to deal with pedantry.

adamah: Then you are likely not as scientifically-minded as you might tell yourself (and ironically even less so than SBF). Hence you likely don't possess the mind-set or patience needed for carrying out medical research

meanwhile, that inference from a single statement to a broad assessment of Coftys potential abilities in medical research was like 200% totally uber-scientifically-minded-medical-research-grade legit . To the dictionary!

pedantic (comparative more pedantic, superlative most pedantic)

Like a pedant, overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning.
Being showy of one’s knowledge, often in a boring manner.

Thats basically what being a scientist is all about . Imagine how much fun there is at conferences over grammar.

New Homo erectus Skull Shakes up Palaeontology

Share this