3 ms·

Without genetic testing you could not objectively know for sure if that was a lion or some other species. Just because a lot of people agree on something based

Without genetic testing you could not objectively know for sure if that was a lion or some other species. Just because a lot of people agree on something based on shallow observations does not make it objective science. Thats moreso the realm of subjective "soft sciences" like sociology.

mikeash 7y ago
Are you implying that nobody anywhere was ever objectively certain of the presence of a lion before the past few decades? And how does genetic testing objectively tell you that it’s a lion? Genetic testing tells you that its DNA is similar to something else you’ve previously identified as a lion, but if there’s no way to be sure if that identification then you’re just moving the problem.
- 50656E6973 7y ago
  Yes, up until the recent advent of genetic sequencing, we humans have often mistakenly considered two organisms that look the same to the naked eye as being the same.
  - Retra 7y ago
    The same in what sense? Sameness is not an objective property of organisms.
  - mikeash 7y ago
    You didn’t address my second point: how does genetic testing give you an objective measure of lionness when it’s still ultimately based on observations and subjective assessments?
    - 50656E6973 7y ago
      Genetic testing is far more scientifically revealing than just eyeballing something because it's based on actual objective tests, data, and math. Just like radio astrology is far more scientifically revealing than just looking up at the night sky and declaring theres nothing more to the universe than meets the eye. Typically a genetic variance of >2% indicates a different species
      - mikeash 7y ago
        So, you test this animal and it’s within 2% of a known lion. How do you know the known lion is a lion?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        50656E6973 7y ago
        Classification
feanaro 7y ago
> Just because a lot of people agree on something based on shallow observations does not make it objective science. Thats moreso the realm of subjective "soft sciences" like sociology. What if the people entering the cave make non-shallow observations and report it back to you? If that's still not enough, then sadly science is not enough either since it relies heavily on cooperation (you can't test everything yourself).

mikeash 7y ago

Are you implying that nobody anywhere was ever objectively certain of the presence of a lion before the past few decades? And how does genetic testing objectively tell you that it’s a lion? Genetic testing tells you that its DNA is similar to something else you’ve previously identified as a lion, but if there’s no way to be sure if that identification then you’re just moving the problem.

50656E6973 7y ago
Yes, up until the recent advent of genetic sequencing, we humans have often mistakenly considered two organisms that look the same to the naked eye as being the same.
- Retra 7y ago
  The same in what sense? Sameness is not an objective property of organisms.
- mikeash 7y ago
  You didn’t address my second point: how does genetic testing give you an objective measure of lionness when it’s still ultimately based on observations and subjective assessments?
  - 50656E6973 7y ago
    Genetic testing is far more scientifically revealing than just eyeballing something because it's based on actual objective tests, data, and math. Just like radio astrology is far more scientifically revealing than just looking up at the night sky and declaring theres nothing more to the universe than meets the eye. Typically a genetic variance of >2% indicates a different species
    - mikeash 7y ago
      So, you test this animal and it’s within 2% of a known lion. How do you know the known lion is a lion?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - 50656E6973 7y ago
        Classification

feanaro 7y ago

> Just because a lot of people agree on something based on shallow observations does not make it objective science. Thats moreso the realm of subjective "soft sciences" like sociology. What if the people entering the cave make non-shallow observations and report it back to you? If that's still not enough, then sadly science is not enough either since it relies heavily on cooperation (you can't test everything yourself).