6 ms·

The core problem of taxonomic classification of species is that they're semi-arbitrary, constantly-drifting centroids of similarity, not static, walled-off grou

The core problem of taxonomic classification of species is that they're semi-arbitrary, constantly-drifting centroids of similarity, not static, walled-off groups with definitive boundaries. For those who aren't scientists, we are sometimes referred to as H. sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals / Neandertals are sometimes grouped as a subspecies of H. sapiens as H. sapiens neanderthalensis.

bobthechef 5y ago
Philogenetic taxonomies may suffer from this, yes. Ontological classification is a different ball game. Any "rational animal" in the universe qualifies as "human".
- jeremyjh 5y ago
  I think the term "people" is better. Neanderthals were clearly people, even if they were a different species.
  - errcorrectcode 5y ago
    They're (i.e., H. habilis) already classified as "Archaic humans." To call every H. "human" or "people" is ridiculous.
  - coldacid 5y ago
    Any entity of genus Homo is (or was) human. Just not necessarily culturally or physiologically modern.
    - errcorrectcode 5y ago
      That's not what the word means. Trying to redefine language for political correctness reasons is absurd. Smh.
      - coldacid 5y ago
        I'm usually the first person to complain about political correctness. I've just always considered humanity to be at the genus level, not the species level.
lmilcin 5y ago
Well, they are tripping on their own imprecise definitions. Using the most prevalent definition of species, the one listed on Wikipedia, we don't have "too many species lumped together into Homo Sapiens", we actually have too few. We know all or almost all "species" since and including Homo Erectus were able capable of interbreeding, meaning they were actually single species. The trouble is they are trying to use definition that has been developed on observation of the current state that is not suitable for classifying evolving organisms over long periods of time. That might not have been a huge problem when discussing other animals, but for some reason we pay much closer attention to precision of resolving our own parentage and that is when the definition falls short of being able to serve the need.
- User23 5y ago
  > We know all or almost all "species" since and including Homo Erectus were able capable of interbreeding, meaning they were actually single species. While this is what we were taught in grade school, actual biologists don’t use this children’s definition anymore than actual quantum physicists say atoms are like little solar systems. There are plenty of separate species that are physically capable of producing fertile hybrid offspring. Dogs and wolves and polar and grizzly bears are a couple obvious examples. Also plenty of species don’t reproduce sexually, so defining species in terms of sexual compatibility isn’t even well defined.
  - dsjoerg 5y ago
    > actual biologists don’t use this children’s definition anymore Can you link me to the definition biologists use? I googled for a minute and didn't get very far. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species): "A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction." What is the correct & concise definition?
    - ufo 5y ago
      The whole problem is that there isn't a single correct definition. For example: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/biological-species-concept/ https://evolution.berkeley.edu/biological-species-concept/ https://evolution.berkeley.edu/other-species-concepts/ https://evolution.berkeley.edu/other-species-concepts/
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
_xnmw 5y ago
The problem of classification is deeply philosophical. The core problem is that the taxonomic classification of anything is arbitrary, proven only by consensus.
- ChainOfFools 5y ago
  neurons have multiple dendritic input sources but can only sum these to a single axon output signal. we are obligate compressors at any scale.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  I've had a series of conversations elsewhere over the past several months on the question. My own view being that classifications are based on usefulness to the classifiers, and we have terms for things which we both 1) experience (there's much of the Universe we've yet failed to classify) and 2) based on our own interactions with those things. Ideas are interfaces. And interfaces provide utility. The very notion of "biological species" is based on the underlying notion of philosophical species, that specific classifications. Evolution turned this on its head by noting that species evolve (that is, change), over time. There is no such thing as an absolute species in the earlier philosophical sense. https://www.etymonline.com/word/species https://www.etymonline.com/word/species So the question becomes "where is it useful to define boundaries between species?", with various arbitrary boundaries proposed. The question isn't of their arbitraryness, but of their utility. And those definitions are ultimately a relationship between us and the universe we're attempting to define. You can drag in Wittgenstein and a whole bunch else. Knowing some of the philosophical background is useful, less so because a particular view is right, but more because virtually any argument or viewpoint proposed has been offered before, and many of the strengths and weaknesses discussed. Usually to great length.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    If I understand you correctly, biological taxonomy, a thing we've had for hundreds of years, and over which huge intellectual battles have been fought, is basically all about making scientists happy, and has little to do with the actual reality of a vast population of living things that is constantly changing over time. Because, if I did understand you correctly, I completely agree with that.
jl6 5y ago
While you are of course right, and much terminology is endlessly challengeable, we can also drift too far in this direction and end up denying that words mean anything. I do find words useful when there is consensus on their meaning, and I think it is still valid to attempt to define classifications even where they must inevitably be imperfect.

bobthechef 5y ago

Philogenetic taxonomies may suffer from this, yes. Ontological classification is a different ball game. Any "rational animal" in the universe qualifies as "human".

jeremyjh 5y ago
I think the term "people" is better. Neanderthals were clearly people, even if they were a different species.
- errcorrectcode 5y ago
  They're (i.e., H. habilis) already classified as "Archaic humans." To call every H. "human" or "people" is ridiculous.
- coldacid 5y ago
  Any entity of genus Homo is (or was) human. Just not necessarily culturally or physiologically modern.
  - errcorrectcode 5y ago
    That's not what the word means. Trying to redefine language for political correctness reasons is absurd. Smh.
    - coldacid 5y ago
      I'm usually the first person to complain about political correctness. I've just always considered humanity to be at the genus level, not the species level.

lmilcin 5y ago

Well, they are tripping on their own imprecise definitions. Using the most prevalent definition of species, the one listed on Wikipedia, we don't have "too many species lumped together into Homo Sapiens", we actually have too few. We know all or almost all "species" since and including Homo Erectus were able capable of interbreeding, meaning they were actually single species. The trouble is they are trying to use definition that has been developed on observation of the current state that is not suitable for classifying evolving organisms over long periods of time. That might not have been a huge problem when discussing other animals, but for some reason we pay much closer attention to precision of resolving our own parentage and that is when the definition falls short of being able to serve the need.

User23 5y ago
> We know all or almost all "species" since and including Homo Erectus were able capable of interbreeding, meaning they were actually single species. While this is what we were taught in grade school, actual biologists don’t use this children’s definition anymore than actual quantum physicists say atoms are like little solar systems. There are plenty of separate species that are physically capable of producing fertile hybrid offspring. Dogs and wolves and polar and grizzly bears are a couple obvious examples. Also plenty of species don’t reproduce sexually, so defining species in terms of sexual compatibility isn’t even well defined.
- dsjoerg 5y ago
  > actual biologists don’t use this children’s definition anymore Can you link me to the definition biologists use? I googled for a minute and didn't get very far. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species): "A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction." What is the correct & concise definition?
  - ufo 5y ago
    The whole problem is that there isn't a single correct definition. For example: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/biological-species-concept/ https://evolution.berkeley.edu/biological-species-concept/ https://evolution.berkeley.edu/other-species-concepts/ https://evolution.berkeley.edu/other-species-concepts/

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

_xnmw 5y ago

The problem of classification is deeply philosophical. The core problem is that the taxonomic classification of anything is arbitrary, proven only by consensus.

ChainOfFools 5y ago
neurons have multiple dendritic input sources but can only sum these to a single axon output signal. we are obligate compressors at any scale.
dredmorbius 5y ago
I've had a series of conversations elsewhere over the past several months on the question. My own view being that classifications are based on usefulness to the classifiers, and we have terms for things which we both 1) experience (there's much of the Universe we've yet failed to classify) and 2) based on our own interactions with those things. Ideas are interfaces. And interfaces provide utility. The very notion of "biological species" is based on the underlying notion of philosophical species, that specific classifications. Evolution turned this on its head by noting that species evolve (that is, change), over time. There is no such thing as an absolute species in the earlier philosophical sense. https://www.etymonline.com/word/species https://www.etymonline.com/word/species So the question becomes "where is it useful to define boundaries between species?", with various arbitrary boundaries proposed. The question isn't of their arbitraryness, but of their utility. And those definitions are ultimately a relationship between us and the universe we're attempting to define. You can drag in Wittgenstein and a whole bunch else. Knowing some of the philosophical background is useful, less so because a particular view is right, but more because virtually any argument or viewpoint proposed has been offered before, and many of the strengths and weaknesses discussed. Usually to great length.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  If I understand you correctly, biological taxonomy, a thing we've had for hundreds of years, and over which huge intellectual battles have been fought, is basically all about making scientists happy, and has little to do with the actual reality of a vast population of living things that is constantly changing over time. Because, if I did understand you correctly, I completely agree with that.

jl6 5y ago

While you are of course right, and much terminology is endlessly challengeable, we can also drift too far in this direction and end up denying that words mean anything. I do find words useful when there is consensus on their meaning, and I think it is still valid to attempt to define classifications even where they must inevitably be imperfect.