[Previous by date - Re: In case anyone was wondering]
[Next by date - Re: Fwd: Re: Panstems]
[Previous by subject - Re: "Qilongia"'s continuing Disneyization of scientific disc=]
[Next by subject - Re: ?]
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 17:12:49 +0200
From: [unknown]
To: PML <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Subject: Re: "Qilongia", nomenclature, taxonomy
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_OzPTUw4sgg+oW7mM6EtYKA)
Content-type: text/plain;=09charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
David's mini-lecture remains superfluous, as the distinctions =
are =3D
not unknown to me,
If this is really true, I offer my apologies. You did make the clear =
=3D
impression that you had not understood either them or the PhyloCode.
The fact remains that taxonomies and nomenclatural labyrinths remai=
n =3D
paradigms necessarily within the tasks the PhyloCode will address.
Whatever "paradigm" means here, the PhyloCode will address only one =
=3D
task, and that is nomenclature.
we are discussing science, not his vacuity --
You are right: we are not discussing anyone's vacuity. But, once more=
: =3D
we are not discussing science either -- we are discussing nomenclatur=
e. =3D
Definitions are man-made, they are not facts, therefore nomenclature =
=3D
cannot be science.
David's sentences -- I can almost see him embracing Bob Bakker's =
=3D
straw-men --
Hardly. I'm allergic to the pollen of several grasses. Besides, his =
=3D
strawmen have rotten long ago.
are illogical: nomenclature/taxonomy are, in a genuine sense, =3D
scientific iterations within the same plane,
This is wrong.
and it is surprising, at least to me, that David pretends we are no=
t =3D
discussing nomenclature.
Have you misunderstood me, or mistyped? We are discussing nomenclatur=
e =3D
-- we are not discussing taxonomy.
I will not further reply to this thread (at least onlist).=3D
--Boundary_(ID_OzPTUw4sgg+oW7mM6EtYKA)
Content-type: text/html;=09charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3D3DContent-Type content=3D3D"text/html; =3D
charset=3D3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1458" name=3D3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=3D20
style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
=3D
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D3D0 face=3D3DArial=
size=3D3D3 =3D
FAMILY=3D3D"SANSSERIF" =3D
PTSIZE=3D3D"12"> David's=3D20
mini-lecture remains superfluous, as the distinctions are not unkno=
wn =3D
to=3D20
me,</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial>If this is really true, I offer my apologie=
s. =3D
You did make=3D20
the clear impression that you had not understood either them or the=
=3D20
PhyloCode.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=3D20
style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
=3D
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D3D0 face=3D3DArial=
size=3D3D3 =3D
FAMILY=3D3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D3D"12">The fact remains that taxono=
mies =3D
and=3D20
nomenclatural labyrinths remain paradigms necessarily within the ta=
sks =3D
the=3D20
PhyloCode will address.</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial>Whatever "paradigm" means here, the PhyloCo=
de =3D
will address=3D20
only one task, and that is nomenclature.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=3D20
style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
=3D
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D3D0 face=3D3DArial=
size=3D3D3 =3D
FAMILY=3D3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D3D"12">we are discussing science, n=
ot his =3D
vacuity=3D20
--</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial>You are right: we are not discussing anyone=
's =3D
vacuity.=3D20
But, once more: we are <STRONG>not</STRONG> discussing =3D
<STRONG>science</STRONG>=3D20
either -- we are discussing <STRONG>nomenclature</STRONG>. Definition=
s =3D
are=3D20
man-made, they are not facts, therefore nomenclature cannot be=3D20
science.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=3D20
style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
=3D
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D3D0 face=3D3DArial=
size=3D3D3 =3D
FAMILY=3D3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D3D"12">David's sentences -- I can a=
lmost =3D
see him=3D20
embracing Bob Bakker's straw-men --</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE=
>
<DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial>Hardly. I'm allergic to the pollen of sever=
al =3D
grasses.=3D20
Besides, his strawmen have rotten long ago.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=3D20
style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
=3D
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D3D0 face=3D3DArial=
size=3D3D3 =3D
FAMILY=3D3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D3D"12">are illogical: =3D
nomenclature/taxonomy are, in a=3D20
genuine sense, scientific iterations within the same=3D20
plane,</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial>This is wrong.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=3D20
style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
=3D
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D3D0 face=3D3DArial=
size=3D3D3 =3D
FAMILY=3D3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D3D"12">and it is surprising, at lea=
st to =3D
me, that=3D20
David pretends we are not discussing=3D20
nomenclature.</FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial>Have you misunderstood me, or mistyped? We =
are =3D
discussing=3D20
nomenclature -- we are not discussing taxonomy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D3DArial>I will not further reply to this thread (at=
=3D
least=3D20
onlist).</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
--Boundary_(ID_OzPTUw4sgg+oW7mM6EtYKA)--