How Science has advanced since the Victorian Era...

by ziddina 71 Replies latest social current

• 

  ziddina

  Hah! New Chapter, funny that you mention "mess" - that's what fossil hunting was at the time, too!

  So many skeletons were ripped out of the ground in a hurry - there was quite a bit of competition between fossil hunters, just as there was between archaeologists during the Victorian era too, come to think of it.

  There wasn't much of a spirit of scientific cooperation at that time - in fact, the focus was often on how fast they could 'exhibit' something, and they often weren't fussy about which skeleton was mixed with which OTHER skeleton in their rush to exhibit!
• 

  NewChapter

  Yes, things have changed so much. At that time, the articfacts were the prize. Not anymore. Now, an artifact without context does not interest the serious minded. More important that the actual things, is what is around them! The bowl is less interesting that what the bowl held. Some things did not become systematic for quite a while, and we lost a lot of information.

  Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson was rather interested in Native American digs, and he did a very good and systematic job. That surprised me that he did so well---but he wasn't a slouch. In repayment, they are digging around his plantation, particularly the slaves quarters. They find certain things like buttons and such, and can conclude that there was some purchase power---or possibly theft---but piecing together lives that remained undocumented as though they were unimportant, is fascinating. Pig bones, and lot's of them, tells a lot about the diet too. Context. They have learned context.
• 

  brizzzy

  It's a good method. Scientist disagree on terms all the time. Naming the brontasaurus or whatever is not really a big deal. It happens quite often. Then there is the particular discipline and how they tend to categorize things. You'll find that one avenue may use broader terms for different species, lumping more together, whereas other areas will be more persnickety and break down species into micro-categories. This goes for many areas. It's really not a jaw dropper. It's part of the process.

  Yes, NC, I was reading Dawkins' The Greatest Show on Earth and he talked about how because evolution is a constant, sometimes it's hard to decide what category a fossil can fall into. If it's a sort of transition between two different species, does it fall into one or the other, or do you create a new category entirely for it? If you have a fossil of a human ancestor that's halfway between Australopithecus and Homo Sapien, is it accurate to categorize it as Australopithecus? Some scientists say yes, others say no. It's far from settled, but it's good that they can constantly look for new evidence and revise their understanding as it is uncovered.
• 

  ziddina

  Also, referring to other sciences that have advanced since Victorian times - take a look at Victorian MEDICINE!!!

  Oh - my - flying - spaghetti - monster!!! I mean, they didn't even start STERILIZING things until Joseph Lister popularized it in the 1860s!!

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Lister,_1st_Baron_Lister

  Take a look at the death rate of Civil-War soldiers - many of THOSE deaths - and amputations - were due to improper sterilization or a TOTAL LACK of sterilization.
• 

  brizzzy

  Yes, germ theory was regarded with scorn as newfangled hogwash in Victorian medicine - only a few Victorian-era doctors had adopted it.
• 

  ziddina

  Oh yes, New Chapter!!

  Looking at Napolean's "archaeology" during his campaigns - and beyond that until the methodical scientific methods of 'grids', sketches and/or photos, tagging and so forth were developed.

  They were little more than 'tomb robbers' in those times....
• 

  ziddina

  Oh, and anti-biotics... That's another scienctific advancement that didn't exist during the Civil War - terrible for those whose wounds became gangrenous!!
• 

  NewChapter

  If you have a fossil of a human ancestor that's halfway between Australopithecus and Homo Sapien, is it accurate to categorize it as Australopithecus? Some scientists say yes, others say no. It's far from settled, but it's good that they can constantly look for new evidence and revise their understanding as it is uncovered.

  And there is no universal agreement necessary. It really depends on what it needed. One scientist may be fine just using a category: Feline. another may need more and decide: House Cat, or whatever. Yet another may need more, and suddenly you have, Tabby, Calico---etc.

  Now, if someone that didn't understand this saw it, they'd conclude that there is a fight or disagreement. No. They are simply using categories that inform them for their special area. Semantics arguments are used so much when discussing things like philosophy, religion, politics, that it is hard for some to grasp that differences in semantics is not usually earth shattering to the scientific community. Happens all the time. The important thing is what is being said---the meaning.
• 

  cofty

  Victorian archaeologists and paeleontologists used dynamite to get at their fossils. Now they use brushes and tooth picks. (oops sory Zid just noticed you got that already)

  I still think sequencing the human genome was as big as walking on the moon.

  Fossils are fascinating but its the evidence in our cells that proves our origins beyond all doubt.

  The tree of life is becoming mapped in amazing detail.

  Many Victorians were offended at the idea that humans shared an ancestors with primates. Now its only a few religious fundamentalists who deny the evidence. That's progress.
• 

  NewChapter

  I still think sequencing the human genome was as big as walking on the moon.

  BIGGER! IMO. HUGE. FAN FREAKING TASTIC.