The only problem we're trying to solve here is how a computer can approximate taxon-concept boundaries (so one can get a proper distribution map of a species, even if the dots are tied to an assortment of different names/spellings), but without an ENORMOUS amount of work by humans. I don't think Plato or Aristotle, or even Locke were worried too much about that particular issue.
My contention is that the answer lies with TNUs. But of course, that's always my contention.
Rich
-----Original Message----- From: Roger Hyam [mailto:rogerhyam@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 10:04 PM To: Richard Pyle Cc: tuco@berkeley.edu; tdwg-content@lists.tdwg.org Subject: Re: [tdwg-content] Name is species concept thinking
On 13 Jun 2010, at 22:04, Richard Pyle wrote:
Dude...this conversation has been ongoing for more than 20 years
Rich,
I reckon about 2,500 years if you count the kick off as being Plato/Aristotle and the notion of essences (in Western cultures at least) but we are probably more up to date than this - perhaps advancing as far as John Locke in the 17th century.
What was the 'biological' (rather than epistemological) problem we were trying to solve?
All the best,
Roger