6 ms·
Several commenters on semantics in this thread (e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15473604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15473604 , https://news
by jessriedel 9y ago
Several commenters on semantics in this thread (e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15473604 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15473604 , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15473705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15473705 , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15473402 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15473402 ) seem to be missing the key empirical fact: that the Earth's crust comes in two distinct types: oceanic crust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_crust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_crust) and continental crust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_crust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_crust). More specifically, the distribution of crust density (and other properties) is bimodal due to being caused by distinct formation processes. The presence/lack of ocean water on top of a location on Earth is a consequence, not cause, of the crust type. This is why the continents are clearly visible on the Earth's topographical map without water. Otherwise, you'd expect the visible shape of the continental land masses to be highly dependent on the exact waterline, which is mostly not the case.
So sure, popular media is often framed around silly terminology changes, but this does not mean that calling Zealandia a continent fails to have real empirical meaning, or detract from the fact that Zealandia is unusual in being continental crust largely covered by water. Likewise, removing Pluto from the list of planets reflected the empirical fact that Pluto is qualitatively different than the other planets, and qualitatively similar to the other dwarf planets.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago> Zealandia is unusual in being continental crust largely covered by water Fits the name, by happy coincidence?
- mkl 9y agoI don't think it's a coincidence. "Zealandia" comes from "New Zealand", but was probably chosen in part because of the meaning - it's mostly covered with water. "New Zealand", in turn, comes from "Zeeland" because it's surrounded by water, and "Zeeland" (= Sea Land) is so-named because it's largely water.
- nabla9 9y agoZealandia is named after New Zealand, which was named after Zeeland province in Netherlands, which is province with lots of water and islands.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mgiannopoulos 9y agoThis is all kind of poetic and mind blowing. Perhaps the ancient Dutch people who gave the New Zealand name knew something about Zealandia. Perhaps... aliens? Looking forward to the Discovery channel special.
- Spivak 9y agoI think the semantic criticism is more a criticism of the article's author misleading the reader by playing on their expectations rather than an objection about the definition that's useful to people in the field. http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1496847714-soonish7%20(1).png http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1496847714-soonish7%20(1)....
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- nostrademons 9y agoI think most of the semantic objections to the article's title are about it being earth's eighth continent, rather than earth's eighth continent. If you're going by the tectonic plate definition, Eurasia is one continent (there's no distinct plate boundary between them), while India, Somalia, Arabia, Madagascar, the African Great Lakes, and much of Southeast Asia are all distinct continents.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- scythe 9y agoI think the criterion is "mostly contiguous region of continental crust", in which case the separation between Africa and Asia might separate them, and the separation between the Americas similarly might; according to purely topological definitions there are precisely four continents (Americas, Eurasia/Africa, Australia, Antarctica and maybe Greenland). Tectonic plates don't correspond to very much from a geographic perspective -- Baja California would become two new continents, one of which groups it with the South Island of New Zealand.
- ThrustVectoring 9y agoThe continental distinctions as they are is pretty much geopolitics. There's no passable land route between North and South America, because the connection is through thick jungle. Similarly, pretty much nobody wants to go through the Ural mountains to go overland from Europe to Asia. Since little overland commerce or credible overland invasion routes exist between continents, they can be thought of mostly independently.
- ulucs 9y agoWhy pass through Ural mountains when you could just pass through a bridge?
- goodcanadian 9y agoAs my comment is one of the ones you call out, I'll write a few words. I'm perfectly clear on the significance of Zealandia, and I find it potentially very interesting. That said, there is plenty of continental crust that is under water. Zealandia is a particularly large and reasonably isolated piece of submerged continental crust. To me, however, that does not make it a continent; it makes it a particularly large and reasonably isolated piece of submerged continental crust. Semantics? Yes, absolutely, that is semantics, and not terribly important, but sometimes, I get irked by semantics. :)
- greglindahl 9y agoThe same thing goes for Pluto, too, lots of astronomers don't really agree with the new "official" definitions, and it's unclear if these new definitions will hold up as additional planets/dwarf planets are discovered and observed more carefully.
- mbfg 9y agoPluto isn't even the biggest plutoid. You just have affections for the dog. :)