The "Geogra What?" posting brought a few comments by readers that are worthy of noting separately: specifically, the arguments about how many continents there really are. The following is a brief summary of the major positions.
There is some wide divergence as to how many continents there are today. Some Europeans count Europe and Asia as one continent--Eurasia, and also count North and South America as one continent--America, giving us 5 continents. Those in our part of the hemisphere generally count North America and South America as two continents and sometimes count Europe and Asia separately and sometimes count them as only Eurasia, thus 6 to 7 continents. Then there are those who say you need to be consistent; if Europe and Asia form one continent then North and South America do as well, giving us 5 continents. There are some who say you have to be even more consistent; if physical connection makes North and South America one continent, then Eurasia does not go far enough. It should be Eurafrisia--Europe, Asia and Africa, thus giving us 4 continents. Some argue that Australia is nothing but a big island and should not have continent status; others apply the "large, separated land mass" formula and say that Australia is a continent under the same formula that makes Antarctica a continent. Some have taken to calling the whole area where Australia sits as Oceania, and some apply that name to the continent otherwise known as Australia.
If you strictly apply the completely separate land mass designation, then we have only 4 continents. If you add in the size of the land mass to the completely separate idea then Australia drops out and we have only 3 continents. If, as most American geographers have done, you say that small points touching two large land masses don't make them one continent, then we are back to 6 continents, Europe and Asia having a super large physical connection and being counted as one.
Add in those who look at the map of the world and point out that if you moved all of the continents next to each other, like doing a puzzle, then all the pieces fit together to make one whole. Their theory is that the world was once one large land mass, excepting Antarctica, and that it is likely that "some day" the pieces may float back together, so talking about continents is not accurate--only one big continent.
And then there are those who say that the continent designation is not only a physical one but a combination of large size and cultural/racial differentiation, which puts us back at 7 continents. Of course, if culture/race becomes a determiner, you could conceivably end up with 8 continents, Asia having to be divided at least in half.
As Bas~Melech pointed out in her comment, teachers moving from district to district have to ask what the district's position is on the continents before attempting to teach about them. At least in theory an International Conference on Continent Status ought to be convened and one designation should be used world-wide to identify what a continent is. Right. We know how well those International conferences have worked in the past. There are still some hold-outs who refuse to take Pluto out of the planet rotation, despite International "agreement" that it no longer qualifies.
This should give you a clue as to why important problems such as world hunger and allocation and preservation of natural resources are nowhere near having any real and lasting solutions implemented. You can't get people to agree on what to call anywhere from 3 to 7 land masses; you expect these same people to agree on what to do with what is in those land masses?
6 comments:
What about planets? Does a ukase from the astronomers really change the meaning of the word "planet' to exclude Pluto? To what extent is the meaning of words like "planet" and "continent" determined by popular usage and to what extent by professional use? What about fish? Is starfish a misnomer because in the biological sense they are echinoderms rather than fish, or does the colloquial sense of a creature that lives in the water have some validity?
You really opened a can of worms (whether nematodes, platyhelminths or annelids) here.
I think you hit it spot on Mike--the difference between colloquial usage and "professional" or scientific usage. There is also the time gap between when a scientific term or definition comes into general usage, if it ever does, and its acceptance by the general public. And some things, even where there is a scientific term for that thing, are called by the common name in general. Butterflies come to mind. They may be lepidopterai scientifically but I wonder how many scientists outside of a classroom, or maybe even within it, call the thing a butterfly anyway. And it's not a fly.
Living in the water is not sufficient to give something a "fish" designation--crabs, clams, whales,etc.--so yes, calling a starfish a fish is inaccurate, but common usage seems to be dominant here. Lucky for frum Jews that the fish question gets settled halachically--and yet we Jews still refer to a starfish as a starfish.
I would imagine that scientists would argue that defining scientific categories falls into their purview--re the "what is a planet" argument. They do have a point. If we accept their definitions regarding other scientific matters then why balk at the definition of what a planet is? On the other hand, we have plenty of historical examples of when scientists were wrong and when definitions changed and evolved over time.
Honestly, I think that producing a dictionary and coming up with precise, decisive definitions has to be one of the hardest jobs around.
You can look at publishers of all kinds for why some of the confusion over what to call things is around. They continue to publish the common name or definition or the scientific one or both, leaving readers to pick and choose. And lots of these publications have conflicting definitions, leaving readers to scratch their heads.
I remember having this discussion with my son's science teacher. His textbook talked about Koala bears, giving the Latin name used for Koalas which does have bear in the name. But Koalas are not bears but marsupials. My son asked me which one it is supposed to be. I told him to call it just a plain Koala. But if you check out publications around today you can still see the bear designation after Koala.
I used to think I was an educated person--college grad and masters degree. But I can't tell you how many times my fifth grader corrects me about things they are learning that I learned about differently. The continents is one of those things. Pretty sad when I can't review a fifth grader's homework without doing research first.
Nice to see that naming specific geographic places is not just a frum problem but affects everyone. We have our own continent version in the what is out of town/in town debate and in debating what really constitutes "New York" when people use the term. Ask Brooklynites where they live and you'll get the Flatbush/Midwood argument. My cousins in Far Rockaway will only grudgingly admit that it is in Queens but they add that it is a different Queens then the rest of Queens and most of it is really West Lawrence.
My daughter's teacher was teaching the geography of the US. The kids were going to have to fill in a blank map with all the state names. She gave a practice map for home. We all did the map at the dinner table, and no, without looking on a filled in map, we couldn't get all 50 right. It was a bit embarrassing that we forgot about a few states' names altogether. Yet, if they are mentioned in the news we all pay attention as if we really knew where they were or how their location can affect what happens there. My answer was to get some brightly colored maps and hang them near the breakfast table. Every day we all are responsible for being able to find three places in the world.
Post a Comment