 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by Eric on June 26, 2002 at 12:01:53:
In Reply to: Re: Questions and answers... posted by Travis on June 26, 2002 at 00:41:42:
Travis,
Yes the popular literature and vernacular can benefit from this, but if we don't adopt it in scientific literature why would they? Standard lists cannot be enforced in the the popular literature or in the vernacular. Anyone can publish a list. On the other hand IF the societies and the editors choose to do so they can enforce one in the scientific literature, then the popular literature and vernacular can follow. Maybe this is a matter of opinion. But that is mine and I'm sticking to it.
: 2. I have been informed by at least one editor within the Big 3, that he will not be forced to adhere to any single list of standardized names.
Like I said, IF the editors use one list it will be successful. If they don't then we are skuck right here arguing over whose list is better. Yuck!
>>Yet, since the Big 3 are publishers of one of the competing lists, you reasoning appears circular. In effect, a restatement of its only premise.
Premise: We as scientists who write for journals published by the big three, in order to better communicate, I think we should follow the standard names list that is backed by the "Big 3"
Premise: Crother et al. is backed by the big three.
_____________________________________________
Conclusion: We should follow Crother et al.
There is no circularity in this argument.
The big three are backing the Crother et al. list not because they published it, they published it because they think it is worth backing. Am I wrong on this one?
Cheers,
Eric
