Science and Inquiry discussion
Issues in Science
>
Units of measurement in pop science writing.
date
newest »
newest »
Uhm, I don't like Wikipedia very much, it's often pretty inaccurate. If you read it in different languages, you'll see that every language says different things (and this is the case). You should check the references, open many links and read them and value if they're reliable. It's a basic rule if you search for information in the internet.Also, checking wiki metaarticles can be illuminating too (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3A...)
However, Megafauna doesn't refer to creatures bigger than us. Actually, we are included in megafauna and a lot of smaller animals are too. It's not a rigorous classification, but an indicative and arbitrary threshold to divide animals into "big" or "small", with purely indicative purpose. Even more, if you think that's a term born to value extinct animals, it can NOT be very precise.
I agree that biologists should use a single value, but if they choose "100 lb" they should say "approximately 45 kg" not 44, (significative figures and assumed approximations here are very crucial). First, 100 lbs is a round measure, and this roughness should be maintained as much as possible. 45 is rougher than 44 and so I prefer 45.
I mean, if you want to be very pedant, if I say 100 lbs I admit at least an error of 1 lb (but actually more than 1 lb, because the statement was made with an indicative purpose and the threshold is purely arbitrary), but if I say 45.4 I admit an error of 0.1 kg (0.22 lbs). That's unbalanced and not appropriate for the indicative meaning of the threshold. Furthermore, it's not reasonable to think to weigh big animals with such a small error.
So, when I say that "we're biologists not chemists" I mean that in field biology, you can't measure exactly every single variable and animals vary in lenght, weight, height, colour etc even if they're brothers.
How heavy a wolf? Males are heavier than females. Males' average weight can vary among populations (that are groups of individuals of the same species living in the same area) across the world, because they live in different habitat types with diverse available resources (in abundance and energetic value): it can be 40kg or it can be 48. It can even be 45.4. Females' weight usually is lighter.
You can't measure the weight of all adult wolves in the world and calculate the average weight. It is impossible and it doesn't make any sense. It would be more reasonable to consider every single population, but what if a population shows an average weight of 43 and another of 46? Furthermore, in winter they're heavier for their fur but they're lighter because they eat less. In summer, the opposite. So, what's the sense of that ".4" in your 45.4 kg?
Shortly, science is not stamp collecting, but too much precision when it is not required is not very scientific as well, because it suggests you can be precise when you actually cannot.
Another important thing, in biology every single number a scientist produces MUST be followed by its approximation or confidence.
Finally, I am not deciding what number is better. When I use this threshold I will adopt the form that better fits to its original form, with an accurate bracketed description of the references and conversion, so that people who will read the papers will be able to understand and go back to the source.
Kikyosan wrote: "Uhm, I don't like Wikipedia very much, it's often pretty inaccurate...."I've read that it's as accurate as most bound & vetted encyclopedias, but they vary depending on the subject, too. It's often difficult to summarize a complex subject & make it understandable to the layman in a context they'll understand. Since that's their main purpose - an overview for the layman - there are bound to be inaccuracies.
Translations often depend on cultural context, so I'd expect them to vary. I run into issues frequently even in English because of the differences between the cultures of the US, UK, & Australia. Most of us on GR are English speakers from the US, so it's easy to assume all are at times.
Checking references is also very important as XKCD so aptly pointed out here: https://xkcd.com/978/
Kikyosan wrote: "Shortly, science is not stamp collecting, but too much precision when it is not required is not very scientific as well, because it suggests you can be precise when you actually cannot."
Very well put. Would dogs have been a better example since they vary from a couple of pounds to 100 times that in size? Does 'megafauna' even apply to domesticated animals?
Your statement put me in mind of the arguments I've seen about the difference between bushes & trees. The old rule was that if a plant with bark is 4" or better in diameter chest high (4') in its native habitat, it was a tree. Smaller & it's a bush. From a practical stand point, that's a pretty good rule. Scientists can have other criteria, but they matter only to them & others who dig into things the rest of us don't really care about since we just need a general reference. In my case, whether I could make things out of it, where to plant it on my property, or which book to look it up in.
Practicality is possibly the most important aspect of units in popular writing. Writing has to communicate to the reader & most of us are familiar with the practical aspects of measurement. The difference between a pace, yard, & meter often isn't a big deal in everyday life, but we can still be surprisingly accurate.
- When we set up jumps, my wife & I know how our paces relate to a 'horse stride at a canter between fences', but often don't care what that is in feet or meters. Exact measurements would just complicate things to no good end. Our pony's strides are a far different length than one of the Thoroughbreds' & we'll also vary distances depending on the conformation, speed, or training needs. Sometimes we have to move a jump, but not very often.
- When I'm laying out fence posts, I do care since I will be going back to set them with a ruler & they're heavy. I don't want to have to lug them around more than I have to. I'm well practiced & pulled almost 50 off a truck for my neighbor & wound up within a foot or so at the end of the line.
(Yeah, surprised me, too. I'm good! ;-) )
There is also an emotional context that has to be considered. Many science articles are trying to elicit an emotional response to generate support for or against, right or wrong. For instance, it might be more accurate to write that a car hit a deer at 100km/hr, but it evokes a more emotional response in the US to write that the car was traveling at 'over a mile a minute'. Same speed, different emotional perception.
I didn't know about that specific "rule of thumbs" about trees and bushes (really interesting!), but these rules are good guidelines, for practical use or indicative information. You got the point.And yes, dogs are domesticated animals, they're not part of "wildlife", maybe if they would have kept a standard size, they could have been used in my example as well, they were wolves, by the way (and so I could say they are megafauna), but their actual variability is too much "unnatural" to be classified.
And yes, you're right about the example of the poor deer.
Another example is the case of US Fahrenheit degrees, to say "it's 100°F" makes you boil much more than "it's 38°C" !!
Woah!!Absolutely out of topic: I've just seen 3 burglars in the yard in front of my house, I shout so they ran away but left their car behind. I called the police and they told me it was a stolen car!!! I saved the car!! but not the safebox. However, I've just saw Italian CSI in action! They detected some fingerprints! Exciting!!
Wow! Good save & glad things went as well as they did. What's a safebox?
I wrote so quickly that I wrote a too literal translation. it's a little safe or strongbox. they broke a wall to extract it. they will have opened later. it wasn't mine.
Ah! I think we'd call it a mailbox.-------
My wife was reading an article last night & it confused her. It wasn't very well written, full of facts with heights for jumps & horses in meters with conversions to inches in parentheses. She finally deciphered it & pointed out that if old measurements had been used, it would have been far more comprehensible since horse heights would use hands* (15.3h or 16.1h) & jumps would have used feet-inches (not 27", but 2'3"). The differences in measurement would have been their own punctuation breaking up the subjects. It read as if the author had written it that way, converted everything to metric, & then put in the conversions to inches afterward. The conversions back to inches, which are not typically used in that context, made poor writing worse.
This is an oddity, but sports & such often have a specialized vocabulary. For instance, on a sailboat a rope is a sheet except when it's called something else like a line or a chain. Since horse heights are generally only compared to other horses & doesn't have much to do with anything else such as their abilities or the size of their riders, the arcane measurement has stuck around. There's a lot of history to overcome. Many horse breeds are centuries old with comparisons constantly being made to competitions that have taken place almost as long.
* If you're not familiar with it, equines in the US are measured in "hands", a unit that is 4". Generally, if they're below 14.2h (14*4+2 = 58") then they're a pony, above that a horse, although some breeds are horses no matter their height. The measurement is taken at their withers, the point where the neck & back join. I think the US might be the only country that still uses it all the time. A British friend told me all their competitions have gone metric, although most still use hands in conversation.
Kikyosan,Biologists are supposed to make up their minds what their own definitions are, I can't do it for them. I don't care whether it is 43, 44, 45 kg or 100 lbs. Normally, there is indeed a negligible difference between 45 and 45.4 kg. That's not my fault if biologists can't have a precise definition.
I don't know whether this weight refers to a mean for the species (fully grown presumably) or an upper limit or whatever.
We need a professional to tell what the definition (if anything) is. Use of the phrase "about 45 kg" makes for a poor definition, as does "about 100 kg". It suggests that the whole concept of megafauna is meaningless.
You may not like Wikipedia, but I have always found it to be accurate, at least for science items. If you find that it is not so, you have the option of writing in and suggesting a change. I have done that, but it is I admit a laborious process. In my opinion, it is no less accurate than the scientific literature at large. Mistakes exist in everything that humans have a hand in.
You're missing the point(s). Maybe it's my fault as English is not my best skill and biology is not yours. Sorry.However, hands!!!! many years ago I took some riding lessons in Scarborough, Yorkshire. Beside riding, I was taught a lot of notions about horses. I remember my teacher talking about "hands" but I didn't understand very well (I was learning English and she used to say a lot of technical words, most of them about horse's body). hands, feet, inches...that was my first date with anglosaxon units, and... I didn't fall in love :)) But I loved that experience with horses.
Kikyosan, have you ever been sailing? I used the analogy because both endeavors are filled with arcane terms & the practitioners treat them as necessary as a cauldron is in a magic spell. While they can turn left & right, their sides are near & far or off just as sailors have port & starboard. On top of that, almost every bit seems to have a name. Some are shared with us, but in very different locations. For instance, they have an elbow, but it is way up near their shoulder. So it makes some sense to have some specialized terms, but it goes pretty far & terms can vary a lot by location. What we'd call a halter, the English call a headcollar. In England & Eastern US, a small enclosure is a paddock, but in the Western US it's a corral.
John wrote: "...Biologists are supposed to make up their minds what their own definitions are, I can't do it for them...."I read the Wikipedia definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megafauna
& it looks more like a marketing term than a scientific one. Probably it's just a talking point like Drake's Equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_e...
Talking points can't be exact & shouldn't be, by definition.
It's generally no problem at all to change a Wikipedia article unless it's one that is under some sort of attack. Just login, rewrite the bad section, then provide references, if needed & possible. Anyone can get a login. It's worth having. I believe the same account works on Wikimedia so you can also help edit scans of books & several other sites. I'm not a big help, not even as much as my contributions to the library here, but every little bit helps.
Jim wrote: "Kikyosan, have you ever been sailing? I used the analogy because both endeavors are filled with arcane terms & the practitioners treat them as necessary as a cauldron is in a magic spell. While t..."Yes! I used to go sailing when I was a child, on the very little sailboat of my uncle. I learnt a lot of odd terms. And you are right! everything has a name that is not the "common" name used for that sort of object. And not only nouns, but also verbs! however, I know "only" some italian terms.
And of course not miles, not kilometers, but.. knots!
Science and Inquiry
Books mentioned in this topic
Realm Of Measure: From The Yardstick To The Theory Of Relativity (other topics)Future Shock (other topics)
Bad Science (other topics)
;)
I'm not as accurate at meters. The extra 3" is pushing my stride a bit too far for accuracy nor have I practiced it as much, but I'm usually not too far off. Close enough to set batter boards or material for jumps or fencing, anyway.
(Heel, not heal, BTW.)