3 ms·
> and that's exactly what we see in the article, right? I think we see the opposite! We start with a naive and non-hierarchical view of relatedness: trees are
by zopa 4y ago
> and that's exactly what we see in the article, right?
I think we see the opposite! We start with a naive and non-hierarchical view of relatedness: trees are tall woody things, fish live in the water and have fins. And the piece argues that we should let go of our common-sense categories and use the descent-based ones, like the biologists do.
Anyway --- I didn't say that ancestry is the only factor. I said it was natural, and useful. Epigenetics is fascinating, really! But it's not 'blasting out' of anything, it adds a bit of detail and complexity around the edges. A sense of proportion is important; we shouldn't miss the forest for the...never mind.
- rovolo 4y ago> the piece argues that we should let go of our common-sense categories and use the descent-based ones, like the biologists do. The piece has a list of conclusions at the bottom > taxonomy is not automatically a great category for regular usage. > (You can, at least, say that a tree is a strategy. Wood is a strategy. Fruit is a strategy. A fish is also a strategy.) > insisting that “wood” is not a useful or comprehensible category would be the most fascinatingly obnoxious rhetorical move. Just the pinnacle of choosing the interestingly abstract over the practical whole.