Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Cross-cultural communication breakdown?

Posted by devilsadvocate2 on 03 Mar 2016 at 20:35 GMT

Also in regards to the paper itself. I think that the mistake of Creator vs. Nature is reasonably valid. Most who are interpreting this "religious" influence are coming from the stance of Western Society. I honestly know very little about Eastern religion but as the authors note they only used the word Creator three times and it is not clear whether they are referring to a deity.

**Perhaps "the Creator" is more akin to "Mother Nature" in some anthropomorphism of nature. NOT that this kind of language has any place in scientific literature but not all writers are equally deft.**

> "The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by **the Creator** to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way."

The grammar in the last part of the sentence is bad. "is the proper design" is probably the most controversial statement they made. Seemingly suggests that nature was designed. But the alternative interpretation would be the scientists' personal amazement as the ability of perfect hand to have come about naturally.

> "Thus, hand coordination affords humans the ability to flexibly and comfortably control the complex structure to perform numerous tasks. Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of **the Creator?s invention**."

Again terrible grammar in the last sentence. It almost seems as if this is a problem caused by an error in translation. Its hard to decipher what they are trying to say here. What is the mystery? Mystery could have meant complexity but its not clear - very poor word choice.

> "In conclusion, our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by **the Creator** for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodeling of the ancestral hand for millions of years. Moreover, functional explanations for the mechanical architecture of the muscular-articular connection of the human hand can also aid in developing multifunctional robotic hands by designing them with similar basic architecture.

Here I think nature works. Nature somehow created a perfect hand (based on subjective criteria). Again this may be interpreted as: this feature, that is hands, is particularly well suited to its goal and very refined [maybe in comparison to other features? - although evolution has given rise to many interesting features].

No competing interests declared.