Philosophy and Paleontology Online Talk (April 2)

Want to hear about the mutual benefits to be had from philosophical engagement with paleontology (and paleontological engagement with philosophy)? Come to the next PopPaleo session, to begin at 12:00 Eastern Time, April 2, 2025. [Correction: earlier I had written March 26— sorry!]

Why would philosophers care about paleontology? What would paleontologists care about philosophy? What does life’s deep past have to teach us about life’s present and future? In this round table three philosophers will introduce and discuss the various connections between philosophy and paleontology. 

Adrian Currie will discuss how focusing on paleontology transforms the philosophy of science: undercutting long-held assumptions and introducing new ideas. 

Andra Meneganzin will demonstrate how philosophical tools and perspectives can fruitfully intervene into paleontological debates. 

Derek Turner will reflect on how paleontological ideas matter for contemporary issues in environmental philosophy.

Here’s the link to the meeting.
Meeting ID: 379 450 241 923
Passcode: A3v8kC62

"Exploding the Big Bang," or revenge of the first antinomy?

There is a new(ish) article in Aeon that may be of interest to folks interested in the historical sciences. It concerns the question of whether time had a beginning— or, to be more precise, it concerns whether physical science is capable of showing that time had a beginning. Everyone knows about the “Big Bang”: the (originally satirical) name given to the idea that the universe expanded from an almost unfathomably hot and dense state. Less people know about Kant’s first antinomy, by which he meant a contradiction between two apparently reasonable beliefs. According to Kant, pure reason is incapable of deciding between the idea that the world is finite in space and time, and the idea that it’s infinite in space and time. But these cannot both be true. So here pure reason crashes headlong into a limit.

For a time, physics rushed in where reason feared to tread. After Einstein (or perhaps after Hawking and Penrose), the thesis that time is finite seemed to have gained the support of mathematical physics. But perhaps Kant will have the last laugh. As Daniel Linford, author of the Aeon piece, writes: “The beginning of time, once imagined as igniting in a sudden burst of fireworks, is no longer an indisputable scientific fact.”

You have my attention.

Now, I’m not even remotely qualified to judge this statement. But I can say that the essay is a little triumph of lucid exposition. Linford has a knack for explaining complex ideas in just a few sentences (and as someone who has consumed plenty of popular books on physics, this is a rare skill). Again, I’m not qualified to say whether these simplifications are over-simplifications: probably some are, and perhaps that’s unavoidable in a piece like this. But I will say that I found the whole performance impressive and entertaining.

I won’t attempt a summary of Linford’s account: just go read it! Still, I’ve extracted a few passages that give some indication of the drift and urgency of the argument. For instance:

As the 20th century progressed, questions began to emerge about the Big Bang. Was it truly the Universe’s origin? The observable Universe may once have expanded from a hot, dense state, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the entire Universe did so, or that there was nothing before the hot, dense state.

And:

In recent decades, more physicists have started to think that the ‘cataclysm’ will be replaced with something else in a future theory. And even more radical arguments are now emerging that question our established ideas about the Big Bang— ideas that have been missed in popular accounts of the Universe. These arguments address spacetime’s global structure, and they strongly suggest that no theorem and no amount of data will ever allow us to know whether spacetime originated in some past cataclysm.

Finally:

The Malament-Manchak theorem presents us with a sobering limit: our observations, no matter how extensive, may never be sufficient to determine spacetime’s global structure. Mathematically, the possible shapes and properties of the Universe remain too numerous— many versions fit equally well with the data available from our past light cones. Though the Big Bang has been popularly hailed as the origin of our Universe, many physicists and philosophers remain unconvinced.

Heady stuff!

Penultimate PhilPaleo "Roadshow" Talk Tomorrow (Matt Brewer)

The penultimate PhilPaleo “Roadshow” will take place tomorrow, July 23 (11 EDT). (Apologies to Matilde Carrera (BU) whose talk I forgot to advertise last week.) The speaker will be Matt Brewer of Boston University. Title and abstract below…

When Should Absence of Evidence Be Evidence of Absence? A Case Study from Paleogeology

According to what I call the Probabilistic View, absence of evidence is evidence of absence when finding evidence is highly expected. However, this view fails to make sense of the practice of using absence of evidence in the paleosciences, where finding evidence is typically not highly expected. Using a case from paleogeology, I offer a novel account of when absence of evidence should be evidence of absence, which I call the Pragmatic View: appeals to absence of evidence as evidence of absence are warranted because they offer a scaffold to investigate auxiliary hypotheses related to the hypothesis in question.

Join Zoom Meeting
https://Universityofexeter.zoom.us/j/91785649938?pwd=26bsSbaPb5anwcOHSIfepsw6fCq2W3.1

Sixth PhilPaleo "Roadshow" Talk Soon (Brunet, Yoshida, Currie)

There’s a new PhilPaleo “Roadshow” talk starting soon! The speakers will be Tyler Brunet, Yoshi Yoshida and Adrian Currie, and they will be discussing the merits of speculative  evolution. Title, abstract and link below…

Counterfactual Natural History, Speculative Evolution & the Minimal Rewrite Rule

We argue that speculative and artistic approaches to future and paleobiological evolution have significant epistemic merits. Speculative evolution, paradigmatically in Dougal Dixon’s The New Dinosaurs (1988) and After Man (1981) is in the business of imagining and representing possible evolutionary paths, as to some extent is paleoart more generally. Although their intentions and evidential bases are often different, we see both speculative evolution and paleoart as forms of scientifically informed and potentially informing artistic practice. These practices are often criticized  as failed predictions or unjustified counterfactuals. We argue that these criticisms can be understood as relying on a strong form of the “minimal rewrite rule”—a principle in human history that says that our counterfactual explanations should assume only changes that are as minimal as possible. However, a strong reading of the minimal rewrite rule is appropriate only if speculative evolution really is in the business of telling us what would happen. We argue instead that speculative evolution is in the business of exploring what could happen under interesting antecedent constraints—constraints that need not be minimal to be epistemically fruitful. In either case, paleoart or speculative, we argue that the best interpretation of narrative and artistic practices places them on a spectrum somewhere between employing ‘could’ and ‘would’ counterfactuals, differing only in the extent or kind of imagined rewrite required. We take this to support the epistemic value of these artistic practices and provide a more nuanced basis for discussing the relationships (positive or negative) between their aesthetic and epistemic qualities. 

Join Zoom Meeting
https://Universityofexeter.zoom.us/j/91000214741?pwd=OFrSDDxdPuM7yrUMYlmwe4qQcxZbYQ.1

Fifth PhilPaleo "Roadshow" Talk Tomorrow (6/25): Jan Forsman (Iowa)

The fifth talk in the PhilPaleo “Roadshow” series will take place tomorrow (6/25) at 11 AM (EDT). The speaker is Jan Forsman, and he’ll be talking about the weird early history of paleontology (as he put it in his Extinct post on “Scrotum humanum”: check it out here). Title and abstract below:

Giants, Unicorns, and Lovemaking Rocks: Fossils in Early Modern Natural Philosophy  

Ever since Richard Owen (1804–1892) coined the term dinosauria in 1842, people have been fascinated with the earth’s past and with the giants that used to roam it. Early 19th century science was overtaken by a fossil craze that, along with the developing evolutionary and extinction theories lead by such people as Georges Curvier (1769–1832), Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) and Darwin (1809–1882), strongly reshaped our views of natural world and its history.

However, non-avian dinosaur and other prehistoric fossils have been discovered long before the emerging theories of evolution and extinction. Several fossils have been described since the 17th and 18th century, with the naturalists of the time attempting to fit the discoveries into the prevalent scientific understanding. In this paper, I discuss some of the competing explanatory theories for the nature of fossils in early modern natural philosophy.

One of the main discussions at the time was whether fossilized bones were actually the remains of animals or simply rocks and minerals that happened to be formed in certain shapes. Natural philosophers like Athanasius Kircher (1602–1680) and Robert Plot (1640–1696), considered most fossils as merely mineral salts crystallized into coincidental forms, while explaining certain large specimens as the bones of mythical giant humans. Vitalists like Jean-Baptiste Robinet (1735–1820) saw fossils as not merely coincidental forms but as the animated nature’s attempt to mimic the features of more developed living creatures through a procreating process. Agostino Scilla (1629–1700) and Nicolas Steno (1638–1686) argued that fossils were once living organisms that had changed their chemical composition but not their form, which Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) later used in Protogaea (written 1691–1693) to argue against Cartesian natural philosophy. I focus on two fossils from the early modern period in analyzing these theories: the so-called Cornwell fossil, discovered in 1676 (and which later obtained the unfortunate name Scrotum Humanum) and the so-called Madgeburg unicorn, discovered in 1663 and was sketched in Leibniz’s Progaea as one of the first known fossil reconstruction. Using these fossils as examples, I discuss the development of different explanations of fossilization and its placement in the natural order in the early modern science.

Join Zoom Meeting
https://Universityofexeter.zoom.us/j/97947405060?pwd=hTs4CSAJSvvIuOqPnqdqePXaXB5MZA.1

Fourth PhilPaleo "Roadshow" Talk Today: Alison McConwell (Massachusetts Lowell)

The fourth talk in the PhilPaleo “Roadshow” series will take place today at 11 AM (EDT). The speaker is Alison McConwell, and she’ll be talking about Extinct faves Stephen Jay Gould and George Simpson. (Follow the links for some recent Extinct content on these blokes.) Title and abstract comin’ at ya…

Organizing Principles in the Historical Sciences: Gould & Simpson on the Idiographic-Nomothetic Distinction

Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002) proposed contingency as the organizing principle of history arguably in defense of the historical sciences and their analytic character, and thus of their epistemic value. In this talk, I detail a period of escalating tension in correspondence between Gould and paleontologist George G. Simpson (1902-1984), which began as cordial discussion about the relationship between (1) nomothetic or ‘law-producing’ sciences and (2) idiographic disciplines like history concerned with the analysis of particular unrepeatable events. This private discussion occurred in response to broader views in positivist philosophy concerning what counts as ‘proper’ scientific explanation, which rendered historical explanation, and thus the historical sciences, as problematic at the time. There exists critical scholarship on Gould’s relationship with Simpson (e.g., Cain 2009) and how Gould used Simpson’s concept of contingency (e.g., Beatty 2008). Building on that foundation, and through detailing features of their early and later exchanges, I explore Simpson’s influence on Gould concerning explanation in historical and ahistorical scientific disciplines. Gould’s concept of contingency as a disciplinary organizing principle—one of explanatory value—stems from these exchanges, which highlight its epistemic power through a different, philosophical, lens.

Join Zoom Meeting
https://universityofexeter.zoom.us/j/96838410941?pwd=5yXVpThhlrT04clhGcRPGPO0wspGP5.1

Third PhilPaleo "Roadshow" Talk Today: Marilynn Johnson (USD)

The third talk in the PhilPaleo “Roadshow” series will take place today at 11 AM (EDT). The speaker is Marilynn Johnson (USD). Marilynn is a former Extinct contributor. You can read her essay here. Title, abstract and Zoom link to follow…

What is Philosophy of Archaeology?

Philosophy of archaeology is a relatively nascent area of inquiry— which means that theorists working in this area are in a position to shape how it is understood and where it goes in the future. In this presentation I will attempt to provide a summary of the history of philosophy of archaeology and philosophical thinking within archaeology that can prove useful both to philosophers and archaeologists who are unfamiliar with the area of study. I will also suggest future constructive areas of research, again with these audiences in mind. I approach this talk as an opportunity to brainstorm with colleagues around how to best characterize the subfield and what future directions we should all aim toward.

In “Between Philosophy and Archaeology” Alison Wylie considers the position that “philosophy has an important role to play as metaphorical ‘handmaiden to the sciences’”. Wylie then continues the paper with the stated aim to show what philosophy has to offer archaeology. She argues that with more knowledge of archaeological practice, philosophers will benefit and create better-informed, more constructive analysis. In my summary of the history of philosophy of archaeology I will present the philosophy of science angle as Wylie discusses in this article. I will also emphasize the way that other areas of philosophy contribute in these broader discussions of philosophy of archaeology. I will focus especially on contributions of the areas of philosophy of language, aesthetics, and ethics to supplement the philosophy of science perspective.

Theories from philosophy of language have been explicitly used by archaeologists throughout the 20th Century and through today. Archaeologists in their work often go beyond the empirical data themselves and posit meanings. Structuralism allows them theoretical frameworks with which to do so. With this history we see an opportunity for clarity about ways that philosophy has already directly contributed to archaeology.

Certain sites and artifacts, such as some caves and bodily adornment, are likely of the sort best understood within aesthetic theories about beauty rather than the symbolism that is the focus of language. Thus, theories from aesthetics are also needed for a robust understanding of interpretation and meaning in archaeology.

At the same time, the lure of beauty has also led to looting of archaeological artifacts. This takes us to the final subject of my discussion: ethics. In considering the potential for philosophy to enhance archaeological research we must not lose right of the role of ethics—and indeed we may at times see this as being in tension with viewing archaeology as science. This talk will end with discussion of the ethical issues that faced Howard Carter in his discovery of King Tut’s tomb and a case study pertaining to collections at the University of San Diego. By highlighting the philosophy of language, aesthetics, and ethics aspects of philosophy of archaeology I hope to broaden our conception of what philosophy of archaeology is, has been, and could be. I also push those working in this area to consider what our specific moral obligations may be.

Join Zoom Meeting
https://Universityofexeter.zoom.us/j/97319053451?pwd=Bvd8nuDXmfJFwTuxsL3zgnZ4z8n7LG.1

PhD opportunity working on Charles Lyell's notebooks

There is an interesting opportunity for a prospective PhD student to study the unpublished materials of Extinct fave Charles Lyell. (Can’t get enough Lyell? Here are some things of ours to read!) The opportunity is at Aberdeen University, and more information can be found here. I’ll attach the description below.

Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875), the author behind the Principles of Geology (1830-33), played a prominent role in shaping our planetary understanding during the nineteenth century, that of earth as an interconnected system involving life and its environment. His scientific contributions are numerous, but include an early explanation of climate change, ground-breaking explanations of co-seismic earth movements, and the theory of gradual “backed-up building” of volcanoes. In addition, what is particularly interesting to this project are his studies, written and visual, of 19th century glaciers and landscapes.

Taking a historical approach to science, especially geosciences, this project expands upon the archival turn in glaciology (Zumbühl et al 2008, Headland et al 2023) and interdisciplinary opportunities afforded within environmental art history (Gapp 2021). It also offers a unique opportunity to study unpublished materials aimed at studying and understanding the history of geology at a time of heightened scientific and cultural interest. This PhD project is framed around a hitherto untapped resource, notably the collection of 266 scientific notebooks (or “laboratory thought books”) spanning 1825 to 1874 that document Lyell’s international fieldwork. These notebooks have yet to be critically examined and their importance within both geosciences and art history assessed. This project will involve a study of the drawings and writings contained within these volumes, alongside the 1000s of geological and mineral specimens collected by Lyell and held within the University of Edinburgh’s School of GeoScience Cockburn Museum, and the wider British, Scandinavian, and central European image cultures contemporary with Lyell’s studies. As glaciers, coastlines, and inland landscapes and their surrounding communities are increasingly impacted by climate change, this project adopts an interdisciplinary framework for engaging archival materials, visual and written, to better comprehend, frame, and assess past, present, and future geological environments.

Part of a larger interdisciplinary collaboration between the Department of Art History and the School of Geosciences at the University of Aberdeen, this project will combine fieldwork, digital technology and visual analysis, archival research methods, and on-location research, with an understanding of geological processes through fieldwork, digital and technological skills and techniques. The student will receive all necessary training through the supervisory and project team. Alongside archival research in Edinburgh the student will also have the unique opportunity to visit international collections and join the supervisory team on fieldwork in glacial and other geomorphological environments. The ultimate outcome of the project will have important implications for understanding the effects that two centuries of climate change has had on landscapes.

Candidate Background:

Applicants should have either a master’s degree or a first or upper-second class honours degree in a relevant subject. We invite applications from candidates of all backgrounds who have an interest in art history, geology, environmental history, the history of science, or cultural geography. They will also have a strong interest and demonstrable skills in one or more of the following: visual or object analysis, handling archival materials, museum collections, GIS.

Given the interdisciplinary nature of this project, the student will have a genuine interest in working as part of an inter-departmental team and within a vibrant research community at Aberdeen, as well as alongside other post-graduate students. International travel will form a large component of this project and so a desire to spend time abroad is highly advantageous. 

We encourage applications from all backgrounds and communities, and are committed to having a diverse, inclusive team.

Informal enquiries are encouraged, please contact Dr Isabelle Gapp for further information.

(isabelle.gapp@abdn.ac.uk)

Second PhilPaleo "Roadshow" Talk: June 4, 11am EDT: Daniel Swaim (Kansas State)

The second talk in the PhilPaleo “Roadshow” series is tomorrow, June 4, at 11 am EDT. The speaker is Daniel Swaim of Kansas State University, and his talk is called “The Pervasive Appeal of Natural Laws: Orthogenetic Evolution in the Age of Progress.” Abstract and link to follow…

It’s well known by now that Darwin’s Natural Selection theory experienced an “eclipse” at the turn of the century. The main alternatives to Darwin and his selection theory were to be found in Mendelism and neo-Lamarckism; that is, these alternatives are the best explored among non-Darwinian theories in the context of history and philosophy of science. Orthogenetic theories of evolution have, by comparison, been given very little attention. Orthogenesis seems, in some sense, strange on its face. This, I suspect, partly accounts for its neglect in the history and philosophy of the life sciences. Because of its seeming strangeness, my aim here is to provide an account of the conceptual background of the theory, rooted in some of the cultural moorings of the time, that can serve to show why, in context, it seemed plausible to consider orthogenesis as a legitimate rival to Darwinism and other theories.

There are two kinds of motivations: the first has to do with a certain reading of prevailing conceptions of “vera causae” and their centrality to sound scientific reasoning, and the second has to do with the a certain way of thinking about social organization and progress as a kind of mirror image of natural law. The aim, then, is to provide a kind of externalist account of orthogenesis in approximately the same way that scholars have done for the development of Darwin’s theory, casting it as an outgrowth of Victorian cultural mores and an emergent industrial capitalism. Closer attention to similar factors can aid us in understanding why orthogenesis was favored by certain paleontologists and other natural historians.

Here is the link to the Zoom meeting:
https://Universityofexeter.zoom.us/j/96275346728?pwd=OUV3N3o5Z1dhV2xBQ0kzU011ZCszdz09

First PhilPaleo "Roadshow" Talk Today: Alison Laurence (Stanford)

The first Philpaleo “Roadshow” talk is today! The speaker is Alison Laurence of Stanford University. The talk will take begin 10 am Central Time (Chicago).

Here is the title and abstract (Zoom link to follow):

“Assumption and Apotheosis: Twentieth-Century Dinosaurs as Mineral, Myth, and Companion Animal”

The year is 1920 or so and a college student is doodling dinosaurs. The sketches are not just reflections of the extinct creatures this young man might have seen lately in museums, newspapers, or pulp fiction. These drawings—and the doggerel that accompanies them—are imaginative interpretations that merge dinosaurs with mythological figures of the ancient Mediterranean. The doodler’s name is George Gaylord Simpson and not long after composing his lighthearted "Mythology for a Good Little Dinosaur," he began his formal academic training in paleontology. Simpson, who started his professional paleontological career at the American Museum of Natural History in 1927, ultimately specialized in Mesozoic mammals. Dinosaurs were not his scientific focus. Still, Simpson’s abridged theogony is a significant contribution to what we now might call critical dinosaur studies, for it emphasizes the ambiguous nature of the dinosaur (an ever-shifting category) and invites questions about what a dinosaur is... really. This talk uses Simpson's unpublished "Mythology for a Good Little Dinosaur" as an entry point for exploring how long extinct life is at once animal, mineral, myth, and--due to commercialized dinomania--a quotidian facet of modern life. Has this phenomenon made dinosaurs into companion animals? Generations raised with dinosaurs as childhood companions might say so.

This talk is part of a project called DINOSTALGIA: A MONUMENTAL RECKONING WITH MODERN AMERICAN MONSTERS, a cultural and environmental history that traces how popular display practices transformed dinosaurs from scientific specimens to cultural artifacts, consumer goods, and advocates for extractive ways of living.

Link to join the Zoom meeting:

https://Universityofexeter.zoom.us/j/97243217100?pwd=NldhSnk0RnVHbDNDTUlDQ1owRThZdz09

Philosophy of the Paleosciences Online RoadShow 2024!

Very excited to announce this here. Beginning on May 28th, there will be a series of online talks on the philosophy of the paleosciences leading up to the Philosophy of the Paleosciences workshop in Exeter. The talks will take place every week (with a few exceptions— see the schedule below). Looking over the schedule you will see some familiar faces, like recent Extinct contributors Marilynn Johnson (June 11) and Jan Forsman (June 25), along with Adrian Currie (who is on the program jointly with Tyler Brunet and Yoshinari Yoshida). I’ll be placing reminders of upcoming talks in this “News” forum, so look out for those. I hope to see many of you there!

POBAM 2024: Deadline Approaching

Friend of the blog Aja Watkins is co-organizing POBAM (Philosophy of Biology at the Mountains) 2024. (Missed Aja’s essay? Read it here!) The deadline for abstract submissions is coming up in a week (3/30). Here is the complete call:

POBAM 2024: Philosophy of Biology at the Mountains Call for Abstracts

University of Utah; Salt Lake City, UT

July 17-19, 2024

The POBAM Workshop showcases new, innovative, interdisciplinary and collaborative work in the philosophy of biology. Submissions can be on any topic in the philosophy of biology, biologically oriented philosophy of science, or philosophically-informed biology. 

For 2024, you may submit a proposal for either a long talk (40 min talk, 20 min Q&A), short talk (20 min talk, 10 min Q&A), long talk with pre-read (20 min talk, 40 min Q&A; note that you will be required to submit a draft of a full paper well in advance of the conference for this option), or a 5-minute lightning talk + poster. The latter option includes a poster display as well as a chance to pitch your project to POBAM participants in a special “POBAM Poster Pitch” session.

Abstract submissions may be up to 500 words and must be prepared for blind review. Please indicate in your submission whether you are applying for a long talk, short talk, long talk with pre-read, or lightning talk + poster. Also, indicate if you wish to be considered for another category of talk if you are not selected for the one you prefer.

You will also have the option to submit a proposal for a professional development session, or indicate your interest in leading one of the following sessions: (1) Networking 101; (2) How to peer review a paper; (3) Demystifying the publication process; (4) Designing inclusive classroom activities; (5) Creating and sharing syllabi; (6) What is a philosophy of biology lab?; and (7) Navigating the job market.

All abstracts must be submitted through Easy Chair.

The deadline for submission is March 30, 2024.

The Mirror of Prehistory?

There is a new article in Aeon about the role that (human) prehistory plays in making sense of the present (specifically, the nuclear age). I imagine the editors were sitting on this one for the coronation of the Anthropocene Epoch. Anyway, that ain’t happening, so here it is.

This, I take it, is the big idea:

No two eras from human history began more differently than the atomic age and the prehistoric period. And yet, despite the difference in their temporal constitution and their positions at the extremities of human time – one in the deep past, the other in the 20th century – a reciprocal analogical relationship exists between them. We have learned to imagine one through the other.

Again: “In the 20th century, prehistory constituted a symbolic field that never ceased to nourish the anxious thinking of the atomic age.”

Now go read the article and meet me after the break.

* * *

Have you read it? Super! I just finished it myself. And I'm inclined to give a big shrug. Like, is it really the case that a deep reciprocal interaction existed between prehistory and the nuclear age? Or did a few scholars in the humanities use analogies with prehistory to say stuff about, like, the totemic function of nukes and the waywardness of nuclear society? The author has some interesting examples, but I can’t shake the feeling that they add up to less than what she claims for them.

I'm also skeptical of the notion that, in the 19th century, “understanding the deep past involved imagining the ruins of humanity and ejecting Homo sapiens from the evolution of life.” What's right about this claim is what Martin Rudwick has often said: that the sciences of geohistory were born when ideas from human history were transposed into the study of nature’s own history. But then what's this business about ejecting humans from the evolution of life? Also, the passage cited in support of this observation was written by a creationist scientist in 1844.

Okay, that's enough grumpiness from me. Happy Friday!

No Anthropocene, no problem

The Holocene continues! For anyone anxious about the impending (retrospective) termination of the present geological epoch, you can rest easy. The International Commission on Stratigraphy has your back:

“The decision is definitive,” says Philip Gibbard, a geologist at the University of Cambridge who is on the panel and serves as secretary-general of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), the body that governs the geologic timescale. “There are no outstanding issues to be resolved. Case closed.”

Of course, in the wonderful world of bureaucratic science, the case is never really closed, and it remains possible that future geologists will submit another proposal to the ICS. Check back in ten years.

*Update: actually, check back now. Some advocates of the new GSSP proposal are questioning the legitimacy of the vote:

the SQS [Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy] chair, Prof Jan Zalasiewicz, from the University of Leicester, said: “The alleged voting has been performed in contravention of ICS statutes. Violation of the statutory rules included those about the eligibility to vote and other vital rules for securing a due scientific process. The [leak] has exposed the SQS, and by default its parent scientific bodies, to a considerable potential for reputational damage.”

Zalasiewicz, supported by one of the SQS vice-chairs, said he had requested an inquiry “including instituting a procedure to annul the putative vote.”

For those interested in a more thorough write-up, the Science news team did a good job:

https://www.science.org/content/article/anthropocene-dead-long-live-anthropocene

And here is another Extinct entry on the Anthropocene, coauthored by Adrian Currie and Derek Turner:

The Future Geologist and the Anthropocene

What’s in a name? What should be?

Nature recently ran an interesting piece on the absence of rigorous guidelines for naming dinosaur species. It seems to have been prompted by unpublished work by Emma Dunne and colleagues, which tries to quantify the volume of “problematic” dinosaur names in the literature. (Here “problematic” should be taken in the political sense, as indicating the presence of racist, sexist, or [neo-] colonial connotations) Dunne and colleagues found that about 3% of the names tick this box: not a large number, but not a negligible one either. In a database of ~1500 entries, it comes to about 45 names. Anyway, the ICZN is unlikely to act on this information for reasons having to do with taxonomic stability. It seems that other options are on the table, however, like a peer review process for new names in the literature.

For some related content, check out Jan Forsman’s piece on the first named dinosaur, Megalosaurus:

The Weird Early History of PaleontoloGY: ROBERT PLOT And Scrotum humanum

And also my essay on paleontology and colonialism:

Lords of Marble and the Spear