Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:43:35 +0000 From: Paul Temple <paultemple@ecologycal.demon.co.uk> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg519$foo@default> Subject: Re: published, and following the rules
Steve
>>(snip)
>>"What I'm trying
>>to say is that pubished(sic) names and lists of names can not
represent
>>personal opinion, they must represent the current validly published
>>names according to international convention. "
>>(snip)
>What you're saying is that everyone MUST accept whatever is
>published according to protocol, and that the opinions of academic
>paper pushers count more.
>I say....(edited)...Bull hockey!
No that is definately not what I said nor what I meant. In fact, I
specifically said the opposite. The problem is that although many
people do disagree with "whatever is
published according to protocol", they fail to realise that their
opinion counts for nothing unless they make their opinion known to
others. Personally I really value the opinion of people who challenge a
published work (because it makes me think and because much of science's
progress occurs only through challenging what has previously been
accepted) but only if I am allowed to understand on what they base their
challenge.
But if I am free to ignore publication and prefer my own view, then how
would anyone else understand me? For example, if I fail to accept that
by the current rules P. calyptrata carries that name, and if instead I
refer to it as P. antarctica, the how would anyone know which plant I
was referring to as P. antarctica. P. antarctica (the true species) or
P. calyptrata? The rules are there to create clarity and reduce
ambiguity, just as the rules in grammer do the same for a language.
Witout them, we would all be lost.
Just because I support publication protocol does not mean I accept that
the published word is "truth". It is merely the most recently published
view and if publsihed corec6ly is a validated view - "validity" not
being the same as "truth". But without publication I am simply unable
to read the minds of those who have a view. The rules of publication
therefore allow us the right to read what people think and why they
think it, especially when they disagree with what was previously
published.
Now what, pray tell, could possibly be wrong with that?
Regards
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:35:06 PST