Response Questions #1

Samuel T. Kim

#2270768

Lecture: Science

Response Questions #1

1. I) What is Aristotle’s main innovation/contribution to the classification of organisms? That is, what did he do differently than any predecessors? Why does Aristotle’s or Pliny’s natural histories include things like “wonder people” and dragons? What is the explanation for their having been recognized equally with various kinds of fish, deer, or other well-known animals?
1. a. Aristotle had gathered his own observations and classified the animals he observed in unique simple categories. There were observations that he had documented that were incorrect, but the general idea for Aristotle to “categorize these animals” was an innovative idea during that time since there were no scientific tools to actually analysis DNA molecules, proceed with scientific experimentations, or scientific databases to work with the specimens he was observing. Aristotle did his best with his limited resources that he had during his life since there were no technologically advanced scientific equipment available. He just used his observations and classified the organisms in simple categories based on what he observed (such as blood bearing and blood less). What Aristotle did differently than any of his Predecessors was that he challenged the scientific world by paving the way towards scientific research, experimentation, genetics, and scientific data. He was the first to initiate and challenge the world to begin keep a record of all living things here on earth. Historically Aristotle was the first person who ultimately began “science itself”, without Aristotle our modern science would have greatly been affected. It was the idea of
   “keeping a record of observations” that lead to scientific research, scientific data, experimentation, scientific analysis . . .etc. Pliny’s zoology work is nothing but an uncritical and unreliable compilation. He often cites Aristotle but also misunderstands him often and does not value him any higher than any other writer. Stories about fabulous animals, which Aristotle rejected, Pliny accepted again without expressing any doubt. Of course his Natural History proves that in his time more animals were known than during the time of Aristotle (four centuries separate the two) but his descriptions are incomplete and not good enough to be useful. The strange fact is that both sides are to a large extent right. In its time, and for centuries to come, the Historia naturalis to zoologists who had mastered virtually everything that had been learned during the intervening eighteen hundred years it was a performance which could have been better even in its own time. Pliny expected everything to be either directly useful to Man or, at the very least, to teach a moral lesson, an idea which coincided with the attitude of the first book of the Bible and may have helped to make Pliny’s work acceptable to the church in later centuries. 
2. II) Why was there a new urgency to classify the diversity of life in the 1700’s Linnaeus was observing the variety of living things. Why was Linnaeus called the “little Oracle”?
3. a. There was imminent priority during the 1700, because many of the scientists during that time had inconsistent data throughout the world, such as eastern Europe may have classified a certain plant or animal within their “own unique named category”, where another part of the world such as the western Europe many have classified that same plant or animal in their “own unique named category”. So throughout the world depending on what region you were living in they had their own “unique name” for an animal or plant that a scientist may have discovered, but if you were to travel to another country or region you would find that same specimen whether it be an animal or plant it was possible that you could discover that the scientists within that region could have given that a different name, even though it was the exact plant or animal from “your own region”. Scientists would travel to other “regions” to further their research through exploration to complete their discoveries and their archive of details or other unique plants or animals that they observe that were not native in their own region. They then would give that plant or animal that they discover that give it a name. This inconsistency was incredibly difficult throughout the 1700’s throughout the world. For example, one scientist that discovers a plant that he had found in central Asia and calls it a “Tulip” then makes observations on the plant through research, then you would find that the same plant is named a “rose” within that region, but find the classification as well as the plants scientific properties redundant within another region with only a different name. In other words there were many animals and plants that were properly observed and scientifically classified through research but there was no structure within the scientific community for the scientists to share their research and their discoveries so that they could properly have one “universal name” so that any tourist or explorer would be able to visit the other side of the world and identify the plant or animal specimen. For example one scientist from one region would find a “buffalo” and would be able to identify that it is a buffalo, where as another scientist from a different side of the world would find this animal and identify the same animal with a different name. The scientific research would be the same, but the animal would be identified by a different name. Ultimately that is why Linnaeus was known as the “Little Oracle” because he was the first innovated scientist that researched, discovered, and had set the ship of scientific classification, of taxonomy, assail in beautifully smooth waters. People everywhere were connected to the living world. He was the “Oracle” one who influenced the stepping stone for the scientific community “foundation” that influenced thousands of scientists all around the world (during that decade) to enjoy the magnificent world of botany. Giving the world the opportunity to discover new plant specimens in a unified manner so that the world could enjoy the essence of the mysteries of the world of science(planet).
4. III) Which definitions of “natural history” from the Natural Histories Project were most interesting to you and notions of natural history that came up in this weeks readings?
5. a. Tom Flesichner and Reed Noss’s definition of “natural history” was the most interesting article. The notion that as a naturalist you are obligated to being a conversationalist. Because without conservation there can be no nature, for example the world is fixed on a equilibrium and if one group of species were to become extinct that would create a chaotic ripple effect that could end the world. For instance if fish were to become extinct from our oceans then the predators that eat the fish would not have anything to eat (such as bears) and would die, then the animals that depended on eating the bears would also become extinct because the bears main source of food has become extinct. This chain reaction would then later reach every living organism and have a devastating impact on our global environment. The world is currently built in a system where there are enough preys and predators so that every living organism can sustain life on this planet. For instance bears do not go out in streams and hunt down every single fish that is available within that environment, but captures just enough fish that would sustain that living organism for that day. So that there would be enough fish to reproduce and continue to supply the bears with more fish to eat for the future. So in a way nature is built on conservation one way or another. Without “conservation” bears would just hunt down all the fish that they could find until the whole world is without fish. Conservation is actually engrained within the fabric of our natural world, when you start to  research and look at the data that is when you begin to see this  within our nature. In conclusion, just as Reed Noss had stated as a naturalist your actually a conservationist as well.

1. IV) Pick out quote from Annie Dillard’s essay on Seeing that stood out to you and discuss it further. What is significant about it and why? If it connects to any of the other readings or the Observation 1 exercise to you, mention how.
2. a. “On the other hand, many newly sighted people speak well of the world, and teach us how dull is our own vision.” [Pilgrim at Tinker Creek Pg. 30-31] The exceptional thing about this quote is that the statement implies that there are those who take things for “granted”, in other words someone who has been able to see for all there life would perceive the world as “dull” because they have become “used to” the world, as a result they are wiser than the newly sighted people. The newly sighted people are naïve and inexperienced. Perceiving that others who are not “newly sighted” possessing a dull vision of the world, when the fact of the matter is that those who are not newly sighted people are actually experts and understand more about the world, as a result perceiving the world not as great, and that is why they do not speak well of the world because they are more knowledgeable than those newly sighted people. For example those who first receives and start’s driving a Shelby Mustang GT, would be thrilled and excited. Thinking that they would be happy for the rest of their lives and that they would have nothing else to worry about. When the fact of the matter is that in reality, they would have to proceed with oil changes every 3 months, have to purchase premium fuel at the gas station, would need to pay a premium car insurance for their new vehicle, would need frequent maintenance to keep their car in excellent condition…etc. “Newly sighted people” would not know these things because they are new to the “sight”, their new “Shelby Mustang GT car” so they wouldn’t understand these things until later on.  They would not expect “speaking well of the world” additional charges on many of required things that are mandatory when owning a Shelby Mustang GT. Only those who are “not newly sighted people” Shelby Mustang GT owners would understand these things because they already have owned a Shelby Mustang GT for many years. In conclusion (It is not their fault but) that is why the “Newly Sighted People” would speak well of the world. And teach us how dull our own vision is, since we are already experts and understand more than those who just started seeing.