Dinosaurs, man...what does it all mean?

[Tyrannosauron]

For the last few years I've been teaching classes about the philosophy and history of paleontology. Wired.com caught wind of it and wrote up a profile. Figured that this would be a good place to share it: http://www.wired.com/2015/06/dinosaurs-man-mean/

[DinoLord]

Neat article! I'm currently reading a book titled Jurassic Park and Philosophy: The Truth is Terrifying that discusses a lot of philosophical topics related to dinosaurs and the Jurassic Park series.

[Tyrannosauron]

Neat article! I'm currently reading a book titled Jurassic Park and Philosophy: The Truth is Terrifying that discusses a lot of philosophical topics related to dinosaurs and the Jurassic Park series.

Thanks! I have to admit that I feel a bit of pain whenever I hear about that book: I had a proposal for the same idea, but the editors of that one beat me to the punch and I was told that "the market" wouldn't support more than one JP/philosophy book. I'm sure it's a good volume, but I just can't bring myself to read it myself.

[DinoLord]

Ah, sorry to hear that Who knows, maybe with Jurassic World's release (and the subsequent sequels) there'll be more room in the market for dino-related philosophy books in coming years.

[Dikiyoba]

I'd argue that an organism cloned primarily from Velociraptor mongoliensis DNA would still be a member of V. mongoliensis. The definition of "species" (for better or worse) is already nebulous and flexible, so it can accommodate a lot. Classifying an organism cloned from some V. mongoliensis DNA but primarily other sources of DNA as a member of V. mongoliensis would be a much harder sell, though.

[Libraraptor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noazay31IZQ

Hi , great to have you around here! I´ve just watched your youtube video! I´d like to immediately visit you and discuss all night long and the next day!  You fill a much-needed gap between natural science and philosophy!

It´s highly interesting and thought-provoking. I´ll definitely be following this path a little further.

Now we do already have a sociological / historic approach to Dinosaurs as cultural icons (W.J.D. Mitchell´s "The Last Dinosaur Book / Alexis Dworsky´s "Dinosaurier! Die Kulturgeschichte").

And a psychological one to collecting (Werner Muensterberger)

This philosophical approach to dinosaurs is a welcome addition. As I said: Dinosaurs are more than just superficial byline.

Allow me to add one question: At your start page picture of your homepage, why don´t you hold a dinosaur skull?

[Tyrannosauron]

I'd argue that an organism cloned primarily from Velociraptor mongoliensis DNA would still be a member of V. mongoliensis. The definition of "species" (for better or worse) is already nebulous and flexible, so it can accommodate a lot. Classifying an organism cloned from some V. mongoliensis DNA but primarily other sources of DNA as a member of V. mongoliensis would be a much harder sell, though.

That's a good point. There are a lot of different definitions of the term "species" out there (at least 27: I've had to list them all in a paper I'm delivering next month). A lot of them do allow that a cloned Velociraptor would belong in the species V. mongoliensis.

The problem is that any definition consistent with the classification of dinosaur clones in their original species would be inconsistent with currently-understood conditions for evolution by natural selection. Evolution by selection requires that a population of organisms includes enough variation that there won't be any traits--phenotypic or genetic--common to all and only members of the species. Assuming that V. mongoliensis evolved by natural selection, then, it would follow that membership in the species isn't determined by any genetic sequence. That's why evolutionary biologists prefer to define species in terms of interbreeding.

Of course, logic allows that one could argue that the clone is obviously a member of the same species and so species shouldn't be defined just to accommodate evolutionary mechanisms. But that's a whole other can of worms. It comes down to theory choice: stick with natural selection and the implied logic or stick with common-sense classification?

Now we do already have a sociological / historic approach to Dinosaurs as cultural icons (W.J.D. Mitchell´s "The Last Dinosaur Book / Alexis Dworsky´s "Dinosaurier! Die Kulturgeschichte").

And a psychological one to collecting (Werner Muensterberger)

This philosophical approach to dinosaurs is a welcome addition. As I said: Dinosaurs are more than just superficial byline.

Allow me to add one question: At your start page picture of your homepage, why don´t you hold a dinosaur skull?

Thanks! If you're interested in those works then I'd also recommend "Drawing Out Leviathan" by Keith Parsons. He also tackles dinosaur research from a sociological angle.

As for the skull in the photo: my dissertation included a lot of discussion about the last Thylacine, so I brought a replica T. cynocephalus skull as a visual aid during my defense. Worked well enough, I guess.

[Libraraptor]

Thanks! If you're interested in those works then I'd also recommend "Drawing Out Leviathan" by Keith Parsons. He also tackles dinosaur research from a sociological angle.


Looked for it, read the reviews and the contents --> Instant buy, thank you! Now, what I am still missing is some kind of sociological / philosophical / psychological analysis on why exactly we do love dinosaurs and prehistorics so much. On the other hand, there are already many ideas on that (back to nature, identity, transitional objects, satisfaction by communication to minds who think alike), but have these ever been concluded in one special book?