|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's No Such Thing as a Rodent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An article in the San Jose Mercury News by Rick Weiss declares: "Researchers say there's no such thing as a rodent." He quotes an article from Nature, which argues that the 2,000 species of animals ordinarily considered rodentsincluding rats, mice, and guinea pigsdid not evolve from a common ancestor. The finding is deeply controversial. Weiss says, "On one side are researchers who have spent their careers hunched over fossils or skeletal remains to determine which animals evolved from which." On the other, the article continues, are those who would use DNA analysis to make the determination. The fossil studiers say that DNA is not yet accurate enough. The classification of species has always been deeply controversial. Biologists speak of a rough cut among their ranks: lumpers (those who see fewer categories and more commonalties) versus splitters (those who would name a new species with fewer kinds of difference cited). There are always practical consequences for these names. Splitters, for example, often included people who wanted a new species named after them, and the more species there are, the more likely is an eponymous label. The deliberately provocative headline of this article demands a response: "well, don't tell that to my cat.'' We often refer implicitly in this fashion to the power of namingblurring the name of the category with its members. (San Jose Mercury News, June 13, 1996: 5A by Rick Weiss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
basis for a fascinating practical ontologyour favorite example is when is someone really alive? Is it breathing, attempts at breathing, or movement? And how long must each of those last? Whose voice will determine the outcome is sometimes an exercise of pure power: We, the holders of western medicine and scions of colonial regimes, will decide what a disease is and simply obviate systems such as acupuncture or Aryuvedic medicine. Sometimes the negotiations are more subtle, involving questions such as the disparate viewpoints of an immunologist and a surgeon, or a public health official (interested in even one case of the plague) and a statistician (for whom one case is not relevant). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once a system is in place, the practical politics of these decisions are often forgotten, literally buried in archives (when records are kept at all) or built into software or the sizes and compositions of things. In addition to our archaeological expeditions into the records of such negotiations, this book provides some observations of the negotiations in action. |
|
|
|
|
|