[Previous by date - Re: PhyloCode]
[Next by date - PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - PhyloCode]
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:01:29 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: PhyloCode
To an extent you are right. But the terminology gets included in dictionaries as lets say definition #1, 2 etc. People who are not sci= entists rely heavily on dictionaries. Dictionaries in turn rely exclusively o= n the people. A scientific conference can get its way in a dictionary once = it has been immediately even accepted by the people. Yisrael ----- Original Message ----- =46rom: "Igor Pavlinov" <igor_pavlinov@zmmu.msu.ru> To: "Yisrael Asper" <yisraelasper@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 1:13 AM Subject: Re: PhyloCode > This is just to remind those who dislike "bird-as-dinosaur" that an= y Code > regulates professional and not ordinary languages. I am not sure th= at a guy > listening to a singing bird thinks of it as of dinosaur relative. N= or he has > any impression about paraphyletic nature of Reptilia looking at a l= izard > running by. > > Igor > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Yisrael Asper" <yisraelasper@comcast.net> > To: <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu> > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 8:46 AM > Subject: PhyloCode > > > > Ok my rule can be dropped in such cases such as in this case in w= hich note > > must be taken that if you tell people they have eaten dinosaur or reptile > > when they eat bird they will take it that you lied to them as the= usage > was > > not meant for that context. This more general usage then can take= its > place > > with other definitions of words which while more general are not = what > people > > are thinking you're saying unless you say it in context. A good e= xample is > > fish. If you order plain old fish in a restaurant you aren't aski= ng for > tuna > > or salmon even. > > > > All well and fine but for other cases my principle should be appl= ied. No > > word can even in theory be strictly speaking defined 100% because= you > can't > > as Quantum Mechanics teaches give a perfect measurement to anythi= ng > without > > the act of measurement altering what is being measured. What's a > measurement > > hasn't even been defined according to everyone. We can define thi= ngs even > > without knowing much at all about it. What is a human being? We s= till > > haven't completed figuring out every last piece of genetic inform= ation on > > that question. You can also define things in terms of how they wo= rk. We > > don't know how everything works in our bodies. If we did we would= have no > > more groundbreaking research into how our bodies work. So even wi= thout > full > > definitions we have definitions. The fact is right or wrong even = a > > scientific pronouncement can only go so far in changing how peopl= e talk. > You > > can say that a spider scientifically is not an insect. You cannot= say a > dog > > is an insect. We are trying to talk to people so that they will understand > > not think that if we say we are going to hit an insect with a swa= tter we > may > > also mean a dog. If you coin new words you run into no trouble an= d just > > await its fate at the hands of the public. If you redefine words = you may > run > > up against a public that just won't budge as they want to be unde= rstood. > > Words have to be viable. PhyloCode cannot fully win in science if= all it > has > > conquered are the scientists. > > > > Yisrael > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Kevin de Queiroz" <Dequeiroz.Kevin@NMNH.SI.EDU> > > > > To: <yisraelasper@comcast.net>; <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu> > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 4:50 PM > > > > Subject: RE:PhyloCode > > > > An ordinary person probably also would not call a bird an amniote= , or a > > chordate, or a deuterostome, or a bilaterian, yet it belongs to a= ll of > those > > groups. So for us to say that birds are reptiles and dinosaurs do= esn?t > mean > > that ordinary people would ever have to say, for example, that th= e > > Thanksgiving dinosaur was roasted perfectly this year. They could= still > call > > it a bird or a turkey.Kevin>>> Yisrael Asper <yisraelasper@comcas= t.net> > > 12/03/05 21:03 >>>Hello Michel and allMy concern is for the ordin= ary > person > > more than for the scientists sincelanguage is the way we communic= ate > > scientist and nonscientist alike. Anordinary person for example w= ould not > > call a bird a dinosaur for instance. Iam not saying PhyloCode sho= uld not > use > > old names only that it should notredifine words but rather instea= d coin in > > such cases a new ones so that theold words would not be for Phylo= Code and > > would be left to their fate indictionaries. People may still use = them but > if > > PhyloCode succeeds then theywould not be a scientific > > names.Sincerely,Yisrael----- Original Message -----From: "Michel = Laurin" > > <laurin@ccr.jussieu.fr>To: "Yisrael Asper" <yisraelasper@comcast.net>Sent: > > Saturday, March 12, 2005 12:54 PMSubject: Re: PhyloCodeHello,>I r= ead about > > the PhyloCode in Discover Magazine. The only thing that seems>frightening > > about it would be if names are redefined in it.They cannot be red= efined > > because theyhave not really been defined under the old codes;only= a type > is > > included, and that is the extentof the definition (not much).>Peo= ple would > > not>like to have to call birds Reptilia for instance.Actually, ma= ny > > scientists who are againstthe PhyloCode do place birds within Reptilia.>So > > Ithink there should be>a rule>for PhyloCode set that whenever a w= ould be > > PhyloCode definition for a word>would otherwise differ from a def= inition > > already accepted even from>PhyloCode, that a new term be made ins= tead, > with > > the otherwise old name>being>declared from the point of view of PhyloCode > as > > describing a nonexistent>category.We have discussed this extensiv= ely > andthe > > consensus is that we want to be able to reuseold names, such as Reptilia, > > Dinosauria andOsteichthys, even though they traditionallyreferred= to > > paraphyletic taxa.Sincerely,Michel>Yisrael Asper--Michel LaurinFR= E 2696, > > CNRSUniversit? Paris 7 - Denis Diderot2, place Jussieucase 707775= 005 > > ParisFRANCEtel. (33 1) 44 27 36 > > 92http://tolweb.org/tree/laurin/Laurin_Home_page.htmlSecretary of= the > > International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature >