Message 2005-05-0036: Re: PhyloCode

Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:31:34 -0500

[Previous by date - re: phylocode]
[Next by date - PhyloCode]
[Previous by subject - Re: PhyloCode]
[Next by subject - Re: PhyloCode]

Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:31:34 -0500
From: [unknown]
To: yisraelasper@comcast.net, phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu
Subject: Re: PhyloCode

Up until now, the traditional codes have had virtually no influence o=
n
dictionary definitions.  Whether things will be different for the Phy=
loCode
is an open question.

Kevin
>>> Yisrael Asper <yisraelasper@comcast.net> 03/16/05 17:56 PM >>>
If PhyloCode becomes adopted then the ISPN would be able to exert so =
much
influence on all dictionary publishers in the world since when it com=
es to
the scientific definitions they would be dependent on the official
pronouncements of the scientific community and either accept or rejec=
t them
as being in usage but they could not invent their own. For instance i=
f a
plant were declared by official pronouncement by the scientific commu=
nity to
be defined by fiat a person a dictionary may feel it should not inclu=
de it
or include it with qualification but they would be hard pressed to sa=
y that
the scientific definition is something else since right or wrong at t=
he
moment it would be the official scientific definition. Remember if we=
 were a
thousand years ago to say we could land on the moon we would be laugh=
ed at
as simpletons by scientists since the moon was considered attached to=
 a
sphere. It's true that a thousand years ago there wasn't officially t=
he
scientific method as established by Isaac Newton but a lot of science=
 was
done all the way to Galileo who established the scientific method of
mechanics for earth but just couldn't extend it to the heavens.

Yisrael


----- Original Message -----
=46rom: "David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>
To: "PML" <phylocode@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: PhyloCode


> > Thank you for your response. If you codify scientific jargon so t=
hat you
> > are
> > insistent that a particular wording should be the official scient=
ific
> > definition it will influence the dictionaries automatically.
>
> I agree. (Though this will happen very slowly.)
>
> > So again I say to have it be that
> > the official PhyloCode organization insist that the wording in
> > Dictionaries
> > wherever the Thanksgiving Day clause applies should state that th=
e
> > definition includes all of the descendents. If you do that the pu=
blic
can
> > be
> > won over.
>
> Why do you think so? Why would a) the ISPN be able to exert so much
> influence on all or most dictionary publishers in the world, b) the=
 public
> adhere so closely to whatever the dictionaries say, and c) the
dictionaries
> not simply (sooner or later) quote the actual PN definition, which =
always
> includes all descendants?
>
> > Are there some proposals to eliminate species as a category in
> > PhyloCode
>
> Yes. I guess they won't have much success anytime soon, though.
>
> > thus generalizing even more living beings?
>
> How do you mean? It is no problem to name clades that are the size =
of
> species or even smaller.
>
> > As far as T Rex I was noticing for the first time that I cannot c=
ombine
> > every word's letters since Trex would not sound like T Rex unlike=
 the
> > word e mail which can be written as email.
>
> I see.

  

Feedback to <mike@indexdata.com> is welcome!