In a message dated 5/14/01 10:53:53 AM, blaine.mac@juno.com writes:
<< George,
The best anatomy atlases use illustrations rather than photographs,
because of the vast range of variability in many organs, as well as for
the sake of clarity. I do not think this has diminished the quality or
value of medical school training in any way. (These illustration are, of
course, based on years, if not decades and centuries of anatomical
observations.)
Have similar complaints been made about the use of stylized diagrams of
faults, anticlines or mantle subduction in Geology textbooks?
Deliberate misrepresentation is, of course, inexcusable and indefensible,
but the use of drawn stylized illustrations is a powerful learning tool.
I think this may be Jim's point
Blaine >>
Blaine,
The issue is not whether the use of drawings, per se, or the simplification
of them is legitimate. The issue is whether they are accurate. Wells shows
by use of simplified drawings that Haeckel's simplified drawings are
inaccurate, and that the biological community has known this for a long time
and done nothing in concert to correct the situation. Wells goes further and
claims that not only are the drawings inaccurate, but that they are
deliberate misrepresentations of the facts.
Moreover, he then goes on to present the best current thinking on the problem
of similarity/dissimilarity of embryos by presenting the developmental
hour-glass model. He wrote, "Vertebrate embryos start out looking very
different, then superficially converge midway through development at the
'pharyngula' or 'phylotypic' stage, before diverging into the adult form."
The case of the peppered moths is a similar one. To show them resting on the
trunks of trees, as they are pictured, is to misrepresent the facts. It has
been known since 1980 that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree
trunks. No one really knows yet where the moths rest on trees. Moreover the
cause of melanism is still in dispute.
That there can and will be differences in the interpretation of data is to be
expected. But to fudge or misrepresent data is inexcusable and destructive
of science, especially when the misrepresentation is known and not corrected.
That is what Wells is objecting to.
If you haven't read his chapters on these subjects I suggest you do so.
Regards,
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 15 2001 - 07:24:13 EDT