fieldherping.eu

Ilian Velikov wrote:Ilian, either you "surrendered" too easily, or you're teasing the admin a little bit...?

Neither, I just agree that human's desire to explain things is in a way 'silly' because at the end all we understand and all we know is a subject to our senses and the way we perceive the world = the things that are true for us are only true for us. To us a strawberry is red but to a dog that sees in a different light spectrum it's some other colour...You know we humans just make up those terms, definitions and sciences just to satisfy our over-active brains... And I'm having fun discussing them for the same reason. In reality it doesn't really matter what the made up definition of a made up term like "introduction" means, and I'm pretty sure the Sicilian Eryx don't give an "introduced" brown rat's ass about it

Ilian Velikov wrote:......just to satisfy our over-active brains...

+1

Ilian Velikov wrote:In reality it doesn't really matter what the made up definition of a made up term like "introduction" means, ...

I would say it does matter if you want to communicate with other humans and get yourself understood.
Crutches, maybe, but everyone wants a crutch to be as solid as possible.

Berislav Horvatic wrote:I would say it does matter if you want to communicate with other humans and get yourself understood.

That's of course true, and is exactly why humans make up those words. However to be understood you need something even more important than definition - you need context, because the term could mean different things depending on what we're talking about. If I was to say "let me introduce you to my friend" or "did you read the introduction to this book" you wouldn't ask what exactly is the definition of "introduce", would you? This conversation started with "is Eryx introduced in Sicily?"...it was pretty clear to me, and I'm sure to you too, that it meant "was it brought there by humans?". So the context is more important than the dictionary/scientific definition of the word. Sure, it is fun discussing definitions and so on but at the end it is rather subjective and not so important. Can you tell me what the definition of the word "green" is...? No? However, I'm pretty sure you'd understand me perfectly when I say "what a nice green lizard"...

Ilian Velikov wrote:Can you tell me what the definition of the word "green" is...? No?

Yes. Something is "green" if it emits light of the wavelengths around 510 nm, or predominantly so.

Berislav Horvatic wrote:Ilian Velikov wrote:
Can you tell me what the definition of the word "green" is...? No?

Yes. Something is "green" if it emits light of the wavelengths around 510 nm, or predominantly so.

Only if you have eyes that can perceive that wavelength of light. See, subjective. Anyway, this is really fun but it's way too off topic for this forum. Maybe if we meet some day over a beer or something...

Ilian Velikov wrote:Only if you have eyes that can perceive that wavelength of light. See, subjective.

I was talking about technical terms in science, not about subjective experiences. In science, something
is "green" if it emits (or reflects) light of the wavelengths around 510 nm, or predominantly so - whether
we can see it or not. Scientifically, “green” means exactly the same as "around 510 nm", no more and no
less, period.
It’s just shorthand. Has nothing to do with anyone’s IMPRESSION of colour, or what “colour” means in
ordinary human speech, or what the daltonists among us “see”, or what a dog or a bee “sees”...
We (humans) can’t see the infrared or ultraviolet light (which some other animals can), but it doesn’t
matter, the light of those wavelengths is still termed “infrared” or “ultraviolet”, and there are ways of observing/detecting these “invisible (to us) colours” quite objectively.
In the same way, “introduced” is (is it?) a technical term in biology, and as such should have a meaning
as precise as possible, in order that we understand each other when talking/writing... well, let’s say,
“seriously”.
You first “deconstructed” the term as a critical mind should - congrats for that, it was very inspiring - and
then you suddenly withdrew and resorted to some kind of “subjectivism”... or “political correctness”?!
In any case, what is “green” and whether a strawberry is really red had been discussed at length by David
Hume and Immanuel Kant and many others centuries ago, so let’s not repeat the argumentation... It’s old
stuff indeed. Starting with Leucippus and Democritus, two and a half millenia ago: “By convention hot, by
convention cold, but in reality atoms and void,...”

Anyway, this is really fun but it's way too off topic for this forum. Maybe if we meet some day over a
beer or something...

I've already become quite allergic to "way too off-topic for this forum". That's precisely why I had initiated this discussion in the "Theoretical Section", not in any of the "FIELD" ones. (BTW, this section was founded at my own personal initiative, approved & accepted by Mario.) I still think that discussing scientific terminology might be a "legitimate" topic for that section. Or "reservation"? My personal/private playground? Hope not so. Noone has ever been forced to join in. As for beer and discussions over it, I'm in.

Berislav Horvatic wrote:I was talking about technical terms in science

Well, if you were only interested in this I don't know why we are still having this discussion as this was already said:

An introduced, alien, exotic, non-indigenous, or non-native species, or simply an introduction, is a species living outside its native distributional range, which has arrived there by human activity, either deliberate or accidental

This is perfectly fine for the purpose of communicating and understanding each other(which according to you is why the definition is important) but for me it's rather more fun to discuss if this is "natural" or "un-natural" (if there's such thing in the Universe).

Berislav Horvatic wrote:It’s old
stuff indeed.

I'm not as literate as you are and I've never read neither Hume nor Kant, so what I've said are my personal thoughts. I don't know or care how old or new it is.

Berislav Horvatic wrote: and
then you suddenly withdrew and resorted to some kind of “subjectivism”... or “political correctness”?!

I've never been one for political correctness, so you're wrong here. I'm a big fan of science but I'm also an artist so my mind often drifts into more abstract concepts, hence the change of direction in my thoughts.[quote="Berislav

An introduced, alien, exotic, non-indigenous, or non-native species, or simply an introduction, is a species living outside its native distributional range, which has arrived there by human activity, either deliberate or accidental.

Yesss! So why didn't you just offer me that at the very outset? I asked only for that, nothing else.

This is perfectly fine for the purpose of communicating and understanding each other (which according to you is why the definition is important)...

Not according to me only, it's just a necessary tool all science needs.

... but for me it's rather more fun to discuss if this is "natural" or "un-natural" (if there's such thing in the Universe).

I would say, whether it's free of counterexamples, or some "fringe stupidities", and you yourself showed
that it isn't. I gave you credit for that, and always will.
Peace on you.

Berislav Horvatic wrote:... but for me it's rather more fun to discuss if this is "natural" or "un-natural" (if there's such thing in the Universe).

I would say, whether it's free of counterexamples, or some "fringe stupidities", and you yourself showed
that it isn't. I gave you credit for that, and always will.
Peace on you.

Thanks for the credit, and of course, it is not free from that kind of stuff which only proves that this like many other term definitions it is subjective (which was my point)...Subject to perception, point of view, individual cases and so on.

What I meant by "natural" or "un-natural" is that I'd argue that introduction by human activity whether "deliberate or accidental" is as natural as introduction by any other species (e.g. the example with amphibian spawn and birds). But...that's just my over-active human brain thinking what some might call controversial thoughts