<!-- received="Mon Oct 10 23:41:26 1995 EST" -->
<!-- sent="10 Oct 1995 23:41:26 -0400" -->
<!-- name="H. M. Hubey" -->
<!-- email="hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu" -->
<!-- subject="Re: does hubey have a point?" -->
<!-- id="g(h<dg0" -->
<!-- inreplyto="does hubey have a point?" -->
<title>sci.anthropology.paleo: Oct-95: Re: does hubey have a point?</title>
<h1>Re: does hubey have a point?</h1>
H. M. Hubey (<i>hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu</i>)<br>
<i>10 Oct 1995 23:41:26 -0400</i>
<p>
<ul>
<li> <b>Messages sorted by:</b> <a href="date.html#494">[ date ]</a><a href="index.html#494">[ thread ]</a><a href="subject.html#494">[ subject ]</a><a href="author.html#494">[ author ]</a>
<!-- next="start" -->
<li> <b>Next message:</b> <a href="0495.html">Rich Travsky: "Re: does hubey have a point?"</a>
<li> <b>Previous message:</b> <a href="0493.html">H. M. Hubey: "Re: AAT Theory"</a>
<li> <b>Maybe in reply to:</b> <a href="0378.html">Alex Duncan: "does hubey have a point?"</a>
<!-- nextthread="start" -->
<li> <b>Next in thread:</b> <a href="0495.html">Rich Travsky: "Re: does hubey have a point?"</a>
</ul>
<!-- body="start" -->
David Froehlich <eohippus@curly.cc.utexas.edu> writes:<br>
<p>
<i>>On 9 Oct 1995, H. M. Hubey wrote:</i><br>
<p>
<i>>Once again I can't believe I am answering thia guy. (in no way is my </i><br>
<i>>anserwing this to be considered a validation of Mr. Hubey's ability to do </i><br>
<i>>science (or at least this science))</i><br>
<p>
And I will continue to answer yours because I'm a teacher and<br>
I've had lots of dummies in my classes over the years :-)..<br>
<p>
<p>
<i>>> measure "distances" (morphologically) of skeletons from</i><br>
<i>>> other skeletons. </i><br>
<p>
<i>>fundamental assumption here that the transition was continuous and monotonic</i><br>
<p>
No there isn't. It says nothing about the transition. It could have<br>
been but it doesn't have to be. The description is only of<br>
the metric and not evolution. The instrument should not be<br>
confused with the thing being measured.<br>
<p>
<i>>> reasoning that is used is based on "similarity". And</i><br>
<i>>> the word "similar" really means that the "distance" between</i><br>
<i>>> the two is shorter than the distance between two that are</i><br>
<i>>> not similar.</i><br>
<p>
<i>>Once again, Mr Hubey demonstrates his ignorance of the methodology that </i><br>
<i>>we use. We are not looking for "similarity" or for "morphological </i><br>
<i>>distances". </i><br>
<p>
Don't make a bigger spectacle than you deserve. Analogical<br>
reasoning is used all the time. And we do look for distances.<br>
<p>
<p>
As a systematist, we use shared derived features, <br>
<i>>evolutionary novelties to unite groups of organisms into clades. </i><br>
<p>
Cladistics is an attempt to produce some reasoning principles<br>
to prop up what seemed like arbitrary rules. You can think<br>
of them as axioms or postulates. What you are doing<br>
is still finding distances. Except now you have discrete<br>
distance measures and not continuous ones. That's perfectly<br>
reasonable. <br>
<p>
<p>
Why <br>
<i>>does throwing numbers at a problem help at all? This does not mean that </i><br>
<i>>I disagree that quantification is not something to be strived for, rather </i><br>
<i>>I disagree that a number is necessarily better than a word. </i><br>
<p>
We can't do without words. But mathematics is also a language.<br>
And it has shown itself to be valuable in science. In this<br>
case it will produce a precision (at least in the language.)<br>
That is one of the problems with natural language. Its<br>
strengths are also its weaknesses. Its imprecision also gives it<br>
flexibility and allows us to eventually get the point across<br>
somehow but in the last week or two much argument could have<br>
easily been avoidedk if people were asked to simply produce<br>
some numbers.<br>
<p>
<p>
<p>
Mr. Hubey <br>
<i>>wants us to quantify bipedality-quadrupedality, while I think this is a </i><br>
<i>>gross oversimplification of the problem. Just within ungulates there are </i><br>
<i>>numerous ways of being quadrupedal, and Mr. Hubey wants us to lump all of </i><br>
<i>>that diversity into a single number. </i><br>
<p>
WE can add them too. We can make more dimensions. This is one<br>
of the reasons why fields such as this are more difficult than<br>
things like physics. OTOH, you want to solve a more complicated<br>
problem with a less powerful method. Where is the logic in that?<br>
<p>
CAn you fix a car with a hammer?<br>
<p>
<p>
<p>
Ultimately my concern is that <br>
<i>>numbers without understanding is no better than drivel (which I submit </i><br>
<i>>has not been in short supply on these posts).</i><br>
<p>
You are right but drivel without numbers is probably worse.<br>
Nobody likes drivel.<br>
<p>
<p>
<p>
<p>
<p>
<pre>
-- <br>
<p>
<p>
Regards, Mark<br>
<a href="http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey">http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey</a><br>
</pre>
<!-- body="end" -->
<p>
<ul>
<!-- next="start" -->
<li> <b>Next message:</b> <a href="0495.html">Rich Travsky: "Re: does hubey have a point?"</a>
<li> <b>Previous message:</b> <a href="0493.html">H. M. Hubey: "Re: AAT Theory"</a>
<li> <b>Maybe in reply to:</b> <a href="0378.html">Alex Duncan: "does hubey have a point?"</a>
<!-- nextthread="start" -->
<li> <b>Next in thread:</b> <a href="0495.html">Rich Travsky: "Re: does hubey have a point?"</a>
</ul>
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/">Book Reviews</A>
(<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/palaeoanthropology.html">paleoanthropology</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/anthropology.html">anthropology</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/archaeology.html">archaeology</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/ethnography.html">ethnography</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/ethnographic_fiction.html">ethnographic fiction</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/evolution.html">evolution</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/human_biology.html">human biology</A>,
<A HREF="http://dannyreviews.com/s/sex.html">sex</A>).