Moderator: Moderators
trogman wrote:Why use minimum standards? Because we document caves and establish cave surveys, at least in part, for scientific purposes. There is nothing scientific about "if someone would call it a cave in conversation, it's a cave." That will vary widely from one person to the next. At least with a minimum standard, you have something at least somewhat reliable and repeatable to go by. What someone calls it in conversation is also a product of learning and habit. Here in AL, we have learned that anything less than 50' is not a cave; in other states it is looked at differently. So if it is less than 50', we don't call it a cave.
Definitions must have parameters that clearly spell out what is being defined. Using a definition of "if I feel like it meets the definition, then it does" is nonsensical.
GroundquestMSA wrote:trogman wrote:Why use minimum standards? Because we document caves and establish cave surveys, at least in part, for scientific purposes. There is nothing scientific about "if someone would call it a cave in conversation, it's a cave." That will vary widely from one person to the next. At least with a minimum standard, you have something at least somewhat reliable and repeatable to go by. What someone calls it in conversation is also a product of learning and habit. Here in AL, we have learned that anything less than 50' is not a cave; in other states it is looked at differently. So if it is less than 50', we don't call it a cave.
Definitions must have parameters that clearly spell out what is being defined. Using a definition of "if I feel like it meets the definition, then it does" is nonsensical.
There's also nothing scientific about changing the definition of a cave based on state borders. And let's be honest, our claimed "scientific purposes" are often nothing of the kind. We sometimes use the guise of science to enable, glamorize or "legitimize" what we really are doing for the pure joy of it. Counting caves isn't a Holy Mission that would be defiled by the inclusion of a few 47-footers. Any scientific use to which ACS data could be put would not be hindered by the inclusion of a few 47-footers. What happens, by the way, when an Alabama cavers stumbles across a new 47-footer and doesn't happen to have a tape handy? What does he call it? A possible cave? A potential cave? A pending cave? A likely karst feature?
Definitions indeed, must have parameters. That's what makes them definitions. Which is why the National Speleological Society, which I hear has something to do with caves, should define the word "cave", and they should make the definition broad enough so that any cave of interest to a reasonable individual can be called a cave, no matter where it is.
Anyway, inexperience is sometimes an asset, but usually a hindrance. As one who has had no dealings with State Surveys and their workings, I've made my argument. I respect differing views, especially yours, Stephen, because I know you've really thought about the matter. If you who voted for option 1 would like to add your personal reasoning, I would love to hear it, and promise to sit back and listen instead of butt in and bicker.
Marlatt wrote:This is all very interesting, but it seems to me that we're making a moulin out of a molehole.
swm
Return to Caving General Discussion and Questions Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users