If you have been reading my posts for a while now, this will come as no surprise: I like order. I am the girl who puts away markers and crayons in rainbow order, who always keeps her money in descending order by denomination, who organizes books on the bookshelf in order of decreasing size…well, you get the idea. So you’d think that I’d love Linnaeus, right? He was all about order…and class, phylum, kingdom, species, genus, and family! It’s all so neat and tidy. Or it would be if it worked—but it doesn’t really.
For the last few weeks, we’ve been tracking West Virginia’s flirtation with climate change denial in science standards.
“How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!” was Thomas Henry Huxley’s reflection on reading Darwin’s Origin of Species. What might elicit such a reaction from a contemporary biologist? Today the question is answered by Rudolf Raff, Distinguished Professor and James H. Rudy Professor of Biology at Indiana University.
In his essay “On the Reception of the ‘Origin of Species,’” which was published in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1887), Thomas Henry Huxley famously commented on how he himself received it: “My reflection, when I first made myself master of the central idea of the ‘Origin,’ was, ‘How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!’”
Okay, people, we’re getting back to the basics. After my (frankly) exhausting exasperation with Nicholas Wade, I need a palette cleanser. So what’s the most basic misconception I have on my to-do list? This one:
Misconception: Weather and climate are the same thing.
Correction: Weather and climate are related, but different, things.