Ten species of crocodiles

[The Ineffable]

Say that 10 species of crocodiles live on this earth and we know of. But at one point all the individuals of one specie disappear.
Please tell how many species of crocs will be now and explain your reasoning.

[Crispy]

First it's unclear whether you mean there are only 10 species regardless of how many we know about. I'm going to assume you mean there are only 10 and we know of all 10...

9 or more. "At one point" can refer to any span of time, which could be long enough for more species to come into being (or not long enough for this to happen).

Actually if you meant we only know of 10 and there may be more to begin with, the answer would still be 9 or more.

[The Ineffable]

First it's unclear whether you mean there are only 10 species regardless of how many we know about. I'm going to assume you mean there are only 10 and we know of all 10...

Yeah there are 10 species that we know, there are individuals of 10 species, before all the individuals belonging to one of them disappear.
---

Your answer is pretty interesting (compared to what I thought about) because it includes time as well. I just thought about species based on count of members and class - but also the potentiality of other species, I mean species that never existed and likely will never exist but they are possible. Eg one has long tail but short jaws; other has short tail but long jaws; therefore one could conclude that it might exist a specied that has both long (or short) tail and jaws.

I also don't think that there is a correct answer to this, this is why I'd like to hear the opinion of other people, to see how they view the matter. For example, if I think about my "possible specie" (long tail and jaws), that's not actually a specie based on anything reasonable, because there's no guarantee that it is possible in nature for a croc to adapt like that.

[krieger]

9

[Aleksei]

Well, either all species of crocodile are accounted for and we're left with 9, or they're not and we're left with X-1 where X is the original number of species.

Ten isn't a species of crocodile though. He's probably eaten crocs...

[Creepy-male]

What crispy said

first there is ambiguity in the fact only 10 species are known, which doesn't mean that there aren't more

second you said at one point, which doesn't exclude the past or future

lastly there is ambiguity in the fact that if there were more than 10 species, its possible for the wiped out species to be one of the species that was unknown. And people wouldn't even know it =p

There is also an infinite number of ambiguities here, like whether when you say 10 you are using base ten and not say base two.... or perhaps some crocs evolved into two different species in the time it took the one species to die, maybe because of the same circumstances that caused it.

but at any rate 9 or more is probably the most reasonable answer I've heard.

Its hypothetical so ultimately, there is no real answer.

[Not A Communist Shill]

some international body would decide if the species that "disappeared" had become extinct...but that of course wouldn't necessarily mean that the species had indeed become extinct.

If all the individuals of a particularly common species disappeared, and there was no remains of any crocodile - this would be one of the most startling things to have ever happened, and might cause one to think that all the crocodiles had been rounded up and taken to Mars - in which case, the species might only be (seemingly) extinct on this planet.

[FDG]

Do you think this is a clever question?

[Not A Communist Shill]

Is this a rhetorical question?

[Absurd]

[The Ineffable]

Ten isn't a species of crocodile though. He's probably eaten crocs...

But the tenth is a specie, an extinct one. But again, it depends on what you consider as specie. Normally, it is based on two things:
- the class, the specie itself - it has a name and characteristics;
- the existence of its individuals, the contemporary evidence that this specie exists.

When a specie existed but disappeared, it is still a specie that we know of, a plausible one (because it existed), we may use it in classifications (may be even a missing link) or using genetical samples (if available) we may recreate it as a living one.

Do you think this is a clever question?

Neither I thought, nor I care about such things.

Is this a rhetorical question?

No, I don't expect a certain answer or suggest anything. I'm just researching the usage and prevalence of certain types of information. Seems like this partially paranoid community is not actually the best place to do it, is it? There's always a catch, people ask questions here to either demonstrate how smart they are, fulfill their propagandistic agendas or gather arguments to defeat others in debates.

[Aiss]

But the tenth is a specie, an extinct one. But again, it depends on what you consider as specie. Normally, it is based on two things:
- the class, the specie itself - it has a name and characteristics;
- the existence of its individuals, the contemporary evidence that this specie exists.

When a specie existed but disappeared, it is still a specie that we know of, a plausible one (because it existed), we may use it in classifications (may be even a missing link) or using genetical samples (if available) we may recreate it as a living one.

(...)

No, I don't expect a certain answer or suggest anything. I'm just researching the usage and prevalence of certain types of information. Seems like this partially paranoid community is not actually the best place to do it, is it? There's always a catch, people ask questions here to either demonstrate how smart they are, fulfill their propagandistic agendas or gather arguments to defeat others in debates.

The problem with this sort of test is, you assume it illustrates what you really want to find out to the degree that people will subconsciously apply the reasoning you're looking for when answering it. And then people don't oblige you, but instead try to interpret the question as it pertains to species and genetics and paleontology and phylogeny and perhaps evolution, not the theoretical concept you'd have them see in it, because it isn't, in fact, obvious - I suppose you're aiming at classification differences you proposed in the past, but of course I may be wrong, especially if your opinion on those changed.

Some additional issues with this particular example, to add to what you already mentioned, is that knowing there used to be a species absent nowadays usually means we have reasonable evidence of its past existence, which makes the interpretation of the answer muddy - is the evidence of its past existence as good as evidence of contemporary existence, etc. Or someone could point out that figures for extinct species and surviving species are often given separately, and it is not unreasonable degree of precision. Moreover, while there might be more disagreement about extinct species existence or lack thereof, there's also some disagreement on classification into species in general. All in all, I don't think this example really works.

[The Ineffable]

The problem with this sort of test is, you assume it illustrates what you really want to find out to the degree that people will subconsciously apply the reasoning you're looking for when answering it. And then people don't oblige you, but instead try to interpret the question as it pertains to species and genetics and paleontology and phylogeny and perhaps evolution, not the theoretical concept you'd have them see in it, because it isn't, in fact, obvious - I suppose you're aiming at classification differences you proposed in the past, but of course I may be wrong, especially if your opinion on those changed.

Some additional issues with this particular example, to add to what you already mentioned, is that knowing there used to be a species absent nowadays usually means we have reasonable evidence of its past existence, which makes the interpretation of the answer muddy - is the evidence of its past existence as good as evidence of contemporary existence, etc. Or someone could point out that figures for extinct species and surviving species are often given separately, and it is not unreasonable degree of precision. Moreover, while there might be more disagreement about extinct species existence or lack thereof, there's also some disagreement on classification into species in general.

I didn't intend to reveal that it's about information, but I was forced to, because of the projections, and the general feeling that most people here are suspicious about the intentions of someone who ask questions, that it's "a test". To be clear: this is not a test, I make only some observations but have no hypothesis that needs to be confirmed. Consequently, what you write here is inapplicable. If you read my first post, there's nothing to confirm your assumptions.

That's exactly what I want, that people apply genetics, paleontology, magic - if they feel like - I don't care. But in fact it happens the other way around than what you say (and I want), they assume that it's supposed to prove some Socionics theory.

All in all, I don't think this example really works.

Work for what?

[Aiss]

I didn't intend to reveal that it's about information, but I was forced to, because of the projections, and the general feeling that most people here are suspicious about the intentions of someone who ask questions, that it's "a test". To be clear: this is not a test, I make only some observations but have no hypothesis that needs to be confirmed. Consequently, what you write here is inapplicable. If you read my first post, there's nothing to confirm your assumptions.

That's exactly what I want, that people apply genetics, paleontology, magic - if they feel like - I don't care. But in fact it happens the other way around than what you say (and I want), they assume that it's supposed to prove some Socionics theory.

So is it about information (as you were forced to reveal), or isn't it (related to information)? Or related to non-socionics information?

Work for what?

I could hardly answer that question considering you had all your past posts deleted, though I might have quoted the one I think of since I probably responded to it. You even gave some similar examples there. I recall the point was that Ti types create categories are more abstract, independent of whether there exist objects that fit them, but rather if there might exist any, while Te types categories were concrete, deriving categories from division of existing objects.

ETA: Found it, quoted in this thread.

I'll hopefully write more about the differences in classifications between Ti and Te, but on short:
- Te classifies based on empirical evidence, the number of objects in each category; Te types tend to (and if Te could be used exclusively it *would*) eliminate categories that contain no members - as long as they don't manifest, they don't exist.
- Ti classifies based on properties and connections. The categories are not created through being represented but by respecting the emergent principles, through objective reasons, nevertheless (1). Its tendency is to assume that there are representatives of a class in reality even when they're not.
---

A thought experiment, let's assume that:
- redbaron is all these three types, IEI, EIE and SEI at the same time, let's call this "type X";
- a virus appears on Earth and eradicates all SLEs, and it's 100% certain that no SLE exists on earth;
- a machine asks you to correctly answer the question "how many dual types this woman has?" otherwise it will kill you.

What would you answer, two or three?
---

[The Ineffable]

So is it about information (as you were forced to revealed), or isn't it?

So what? These are different things:
1 to view the matter as a general observation about how people consider a specie;
2 to watch this from the perspective of the types of information;
3 a test to confirm an information metabolism hypothesis.

I'm talking about case 2, you talk about case 3, so you're wrong. In both case 2 and 3, it normally doesn't even matter what I am thinking about, people need to answer naturally. You people spoiled it, I might have to find this on other forums, not Socionics-related.

I could hardly answer that question considering you had all your past posts deleted, though I might have quoted the one I think of since I probably responded to it. You even gave some similar examples there. I recall the point was that Ti types create categories are more abstract, independent of whether there exist objects that fit them, but rather if there might exist any, while Te types categories were concrete, deriving categories from division of existing objects.

ETA: Found it, quoted in this thread.

OK, so? How did you conclude that this is a test that was supposed to confirm that, genius? The difference is indeed mainly between using Ti and Te - and I'm glad you remembered that! - but there are also many more other factors that real answers may reveal and I want to find them out. For example, Crispy's answer was very revealing, it added the variable of time; when you focus on two functions, you overlook how the rest comes into action.

[The Ineffable]

@thread: from now on, the answers will be biased and not relevant, so I'm not interested in them anymore.