Job Discussion Forums

[yaramaz]

This is all stunningly arbitrary and can be argued till the cows come home. How can we argue over something whose definition and boundaries we are not at all sure of and never can be? And do we care? Is it relevant? These are just land masses (some under water) usually covered with people and plants and cities etc. Some are attached to others, some are Islands. We have already established artificial boundaries in the form of countries. Do we really need more?

[arioch36]

There is a difference between calling Australia a continent, and calling Australia part of the Oceania continent.

Yaramaz, aren't you in Turkey? My understanding is that the main reason that they now allow Kurds to learn Kurdish is that they want to be in the European union.

[VanKen]

[yaramaz]

Arioch, points taken, but I still think continents are irrelevant. I fail to see, however, how my sharing a bathroom with men has anything to do with geography. And Turkey is mighty confused about its identity, whether it be European or Asian. To be honest, I can't help thinking it is both and it is neither--- thus there really is no clear cut continental divide between Europe and Asia. It's the same with Africa and Asia: are the North African countries more linked to Asia or Africa or both? I think the whole world is quite fluid, with influence spreading across borders and boundaries.

The EU is a political union, not geographical. Not all Euro countries have joined the Eu.

[dmb]

[Capergirl]

Ah, I'm feeling much better now.

[Magoo]

Shame on you, Roger. Continent-terra continens-continuous land. Still, I don't know how this applies to tectonic plates 'n' all. I consider Britain to be separate from Europe, but this is really a political view. Perhaps we need an E.T. to intervene, here.

[arioch36]

Sorry for making a confusing point about sharing a bathroom.

My point in my mind at the time, we all quickly learn to make distinctions between people. I am a boy/girl. Your school has a name and a place. This is how people work to achieve good and bad things. My university belonge to "New York State" a totally artificially created geographical location. My school is a member of the MidAtlantic Association (or something likethat) that certifies and decertifies colleges. SO we use physical markers nd geograghical markers/distinctions to organize our lives. Often, not always good.

Sometimes the continent isn't as important as a mountain range that divided people into groups. Certainly Russia has more land in "Asia", but they would feel insulted to be called asian.

Soon all countries will have to joing the EU, as it grows ever more powerful, and insists that all european countries abide by its rules to do business with it. I am very curious to see what will happen when Turkey joins. I can not believe the EU can get away not admitting them the second time. Then there will be a profound change in continent dynamics.

Egypt has been a barrier to the rest of Africa. Well here is Egypt (quasi Arab) and beyond that is the rest of Africa)

This is why what will happen when Turkey is admitted truly arouses my curiousity. What will be the barrier then? Right now the EU is a geographic based power, starting with "old" Europe, and slowly expanding its borders. When Turkey is assimilated into the collective, it opens the doors to many countries not taditionally though of as Europe

[yaramaz]

Arioch, points taken again, and I do agree with you. I just dont think we need so many boundaries and reference points which are so arbitrary and arguable. I'm not sure what the alternative would be though.

[cimarch]

This is all getting very Orwellian. Anyone else worried?

[yaramaz]

Hurray Oceania! Boo Eurasia!

[Ludwig]

'Capergirl', to return to your original question, I suspect the cause of the confusion is nothing other than a difference in definition and/or a difference of underlying philosophy and/or an inability on the part of your students to express themselves fully.

Let's deal with the philosophical possibility first. Quite obviously, if by 'continent' you mean a distinct mass of land separated by any other such objects through water (that is, land with water above it) - this is 'continent' in the sense of 'big island' - then of course your ultimate tally of 'continents' will differ quite radically to any tally comprising the number of distinct land masses that also calculates for, and factors in, distinct political/cultural/racial divides/entities. (These of course will not overlap by rule.)

It's as if you believe that 'the truth is out there' somewhere (or other). However, it is not carved in stone somewhere that 'there is 'x' number of 'continents''. How could it be? After all, they transform in shape, move and even collide. The expansion of the Atlantic for example (that is, the drift of the New World away from the Old) has even be measured quite recently by satellites (engendering the Duke of Edinburgh's (in)famous quip that at least now Britain at last knows where it stands in relation to the US). (It must be said, for all his obvious faults, the grand old Duke of Edinburgh is at least really quite quick-witted.)

By very definition, what you count will depend on what you count as countable. The answer to the question as to how many continents there are in the world quite obviously depends solely on what you choose to count as a 'continent'. There is no ultimate source to which one can refer. It never ceases to amaze the layman that experts have no hard and fast golden rules with which to separate, say, continents from islands, or species from varieties, or languages from dialects.

Indeed, it often surprises the layman that, for example, it never really matters what you attempt to count, it will always be infinite. That is, one can always adopt a finer, more refined scale. The reasons for this amazement, as in so many other areas, are not at all clear. After all, the same people will show no amazement at all at the notion of the value of, say, PI being infinite, even though it is nothing other than a 1 third of a (finite) circle (and thus, presumably, finite). What is 'at fault' is quite obviously our unit of measure, not the circle (which really may indeed have some Platonic Essence, independent of human existence). Our units of measure do not necessarily match in a one-to-one fashion with the real, empirical world; a fact that seems beyond some (I suspect perhaps your students).

Similarly, the sceptic of this notion will show no amazement at all at the following experiment. Take a piece of foolscap paper. Say that you are to measure it. Say that you to measure it with an ever-decreasing unit of measurement (in size, thus an ever-increasing rate of 'accuracy'). Each time you do this, halve the measurement. Your first measurement should be the length of paper. You will see that, instead of progressing towards the end of the paper, you will progressively move back towards the starting point. You 'unit of measurement' will never ever be limited by mathematics, only by your life span.

A stunning example of this is that posed by the coastline of England. If there was ever a finite length that could be objectively measured than the coastline of England must be it. However, as shown by Beno�t Mandelbrot in his, 'The fractal geometry of nature', (rev. ed., New York, W. H. Freeman, 1982), it is a classic example of a structure that goes on revealing more and more structure and detail the closer that one examines it (and, of course, no one would expect a map of such a coastline to be marked down to, say, atomic detail; nor would they benefit from such increased 'accuracy').

If the problem of your students does not stem from a (largely misplaced)underlying philosophy than the cause of the problem may reside instead in and stem from the results of a differing framework. In current evolutionary terms, the first proposed continent, Pangaea, (composed of what are now the Americas and the Old World) gave rise to two great continents, Gondwanaland (honestly!) and Laurasia and a smaller continent, Baltica. Around 100 mya (million years ago) Gondwanaland broke up to make some parts of Europe, Tibet, and two parts of China. Not until 50 mya did (what is now) Australia split from Antarctica, and Europe married with Asia. So, ultimately, it�s all a question of how far you want to go back.

[yaramaz]

Yeah, like, what he said...

[khmerhit]

Dr Bertrand...... at it again.

[Mark-O]

Now shall we proceed to debate about where one ocean starts and another ends?