Scientific ethics

Community and Forum → Other questions. Insects topics → Scientific ethics

Juglans, 26.08.2007 7:19

Tentator
That is, we have a kind of "hypocrisy": they write the same way, but they speak differently. Well, there is no international colloquial "zoological Latin"! Everyone speaks differently. Knowledge consists of many components, including mutual respect. Latinists look at ordinary users in the same way that fly-km looks at "ignorant"ones. The "ignorant" ones reciprocate. At one time, Zabinkova worked at BINET, who 50 years ago wrote Latin-Russian and Russian-Latin dictionaries for botanists – how many years have passed, and this is the reference book of many zoologists for whom nothing like this was written in Russian. So what's there to talk about? Try using the usual Latin-Russian dictionaries to translate 19th-century zoological descriptions. I only found the necessary meaning of the word cervinus in Zabinkova.

le_lapin
ZIN - Center for Zoological Science in the Russian Federation. Most of the dissertations go through it, and some Zinovites like to make the remarks "they don't say that" and "they don't write that". I can't say that all comments are controversial, but the most valuable comments are received not in reviews or after public speeches, but in a private conversation. After all, it is in ZINA that the people who know zoological nomenclature best in the country work.

Comments

Pages: 1 2

26.08.2007 11:48, Tentator

Tentator
That is, we have a kind of "hypocrisy": they write the same way, but they speak differently. Well, there is no international colloquial "zoological Latin"! Everyone speaks differently. Knowledge consists of many components, including mutual respect. Latinists look at ordinary users in the same way that fly-km looks at "ignorant"ones. The "ignorant" ones reciprocate. At one time, Zabinkova worked at BINET, who 50 years ago wrote Latin-Russian and Russian-Latin dictionaries for botanists – how many years have passed, and this is the reference book of many zoologists for whom nothing like this was written in Russian. So what's there to talk about? Try using the usual Latin-Russian dictionaries to translate 19th-century zoological descriptions. I only found the necessary meaning of the word cervinus in Zabinkova.

"We have a place... We have no... They're looking at us..." What are these arguments for? Talk about yourself. Speak correctly if you think it's necessary. Lyubishchev said: "The present is accepted by those who do not believe in the future." Speak for yourself and teach your students. Monsieur Le chapin told you correctly: as you teach them, they will speak. And if you will be corrected by some old man, do not stand and do not be silent like a schoolboy who made a mistake, but argue. There are manuals for zoologists, I gave a link, but the public here demanded "serious" textbooks. For botanists, Latin is much more vital than for zoologists, because their diagnoses are still written in Latin, so they were the first to compile dictionaries, by the way, quite suitable for zoologists. Outdated? Not enough? Write your own!

Likes: 1

27.08.2007 2:09, Juglans

le_lapin
do you, of course, work at a research institute or university? Both are based on authority. If our director is convinced of the correctness of GastrotrIcha, then publicly proving the opposite is not only pointless, but even dangerous. In a university environment, consistency is important: I can teach students to speak correctly, but it's no use if they hear something different in all other lectures and in general in life. I can't get any correct speech at all, without "well", without "as if". What is the stress there - by the 4th year, 3/4 of students no longer remember who the gastrotrichs are, and Latin is read by syllables on the defense of diplomas. Now there is a clear belief in the university environment that a biochemist or cytologist does not need all this systematics with Latin.

This post was edited by Juglans - 08/27/2007 02: 09

Likes: 3

27.08.2007 18:54, le lapin

That's how we live: you can't say it without offending, you shouldn't write it without offending. And if I SUDDENLY say from a high rostrum that it is necessary to say gastrotrikhi, then I will offend and hurt you if I do it with good arguments. Do I need this? And no one needs it... In general, the truth is on the side of Tentatora, but it is better not to believe it...

Well, you don't mix different things. It's one thing when I'm on a forum under an obscure nickname, i.e. incognito, I start hinting at someone's incompetence, and in such a way that the character may be recognizable. This is, to say the least, ugly. Moreover, nothing can be changed after the fact.

It is quite another when you, without addressing anyone in particular, but at the same time openly express your opinion on the issue that concerns you and make a proposal for the application of certain rules, referring to authoritative literary sources. Where's the insult?

This post was edited by le_lapin - 08/27/2007 18: 55

Likes: 1

29.08.2007 10:36, Juglans

le_lapin
"I know that there are people who speak incorrectly, but I will not hint who it is" - then why write this? To mark the boundary between "I" and "they"? In my opinion, this is not a good thing.

You are either young or naive . The scientific environment is a delicate thing, where people RARELY hit each other in the face in the open. Everything is arranged as a set of delicate phrases that are directed at specific people. Everyone knows that person A says Latin names only in this way, corrects young people at a conference, and his boss (a very respected person in the scientific community) says the same thing. And so person B comes out and says that it is correct to say not so [in the audience everyone immediately understands that this is AS IF addressed to person A], but so. And okay, "so" - then follows a three-story argument, after which people silently approach B and shake hands with " Well done! Put the bureaucrat in his place!" Do you think that this doesn't happen? Not only does this happen, but I've also been in a position where I've become the enemy of a person I didn't have anything personal against, but only corrected the gross mistakes of his graduate student in PUBLIC (including mistakes in Latin names). I can't boast of an iron nervous system, so I have to avoid these blunders. How? I will say "bryohoresnichnye", and not gastrotrikhi... About 10 years ago, when I was nobody, did not hold any positions, I would have felt freer.

29.08.2007 12:50, Tentator

le_lapin
"I know that there are people who speak incorrectly, but I will not hint who it is" - then why write this? To mark the boundary between "I" and "they"? In my opinion, this is not a good thing.

You are either young or naive . The scientific environment is a delicate thing, where people RARELY hit each other in the face in the open. Everything is arranged as a set of delicate phrases that are directed at specific people. Everyone knows that person A says Latin names only in this way, corrects young people at a conference, and his boss (a very respected person in the scientific community) says the same thing. And so person B comes out and says that it is correct to say not so [in the audience everyone immediately understands that this is AS IF addressed to person A], but so. And okay, "so" - then follows a three-story argument, after which people silently approach B and shake hands with " Well done! Put the bureaucrat in his place!" Do you think that this doesn't happen? Not only does this happen, but I've also been in a position where I've become the enemy of a person I didn't have anything personal against, but only corrected the gross mistakes of his graduate student in PUBLIC (including mistakes in Latin names). I can't boast of an iron nervous system, so I have to avoid these blunders. How? I will say "bryohoresnichnye", and not gastrotrikhi... About 10 years ago, when I was nobody, did not hold any positions, I would have felt freer.

You talk very funny, sir. And if this Ai from a high rostrum speaks about the plans of the Creator or torsion fields or the memory of water, will you also sit and be silent? Did the glorious times of Trofim Denisovich teach you anything? The most important thing, perhaps the only thing that exists for a scientist, is the truth. The rest is tinsel and junk. If you stop serving the truth, you stop being a scientist. But, when the truth is on your side, then some "sets of delicate phrases"are not terrible. If you acquire an enemy because you corrected his grad student's mistake, then your new enemy is stupid. Why do you need such a friend?

This post was edited by Tentator - 08/29/2007 17: 49

29.08.2007 17:47, Tentator

Tentator
1) Do not confuse science and entourage. The emphasis in Latin words is entourage, not science. Quarreling over the entourage is stupid.
2) What is written about the truth is utopia. I don't believe in utopia.
3) Why is the enemy a former friend? Anyone can become a detractor.

A scientist cannot adhere to such a division: he cannot build scientific systems of mollusks during working hours and draw pentograms and summon spirits at night. A scientist should be a scientist in everything. Utopia, I suppose, is something you can't do? Who is a scientist who sins against the truth? Isn't it the same as a murderous doctor or a vodka-selling priest? Exchange your conscience for a good relationship with a fool? It doesn't smell right.

Ita a Patribus nostris didicimus , ut virtute, non dolo contenderemus.

Ah, if only it were so...

29.08.2007 18:25, Juglans

fly-km
Culture can be a subject for scientific research, but it cannot be the basis of science itself. I know excellent taxonomists who don't know Latin grammar at all, and I know a very ordinary taxonomist who speaks fluent Latin. Lomonosov used foul language and threw empty barrels at his opponents. Plavilshchikov actually killed a man. And this is nothing compared to the fact that now in Russia you can count on your fingers the botanists who are able to make a Latin diagnosis of a new species without "tracing paper". So what? Are you trying to convince me that everyone else isn't a real scholar because they don't know Latin grammar and don't put the right emphasis on certain words? Nonsense!

Tentator
Just watched a movie about the Dresden bombing: so you want to convince me that reason, conscience and justice rule the world? During sexual intercourse, the scientist remains a scientist and replays the entire physiology of events in his head? And Pavlov, who believed in God, was a semi-scholar? Like Bohr, who attended synagogue? Not to mention Newton, who - I hate to think of it - sometimes drew pentagrams at night... You don't need to build houses made of ivory, look down from them and write some myths about a special caste of people called "scientists" - it looks ridiculous. Compromise is not a deal with conscience, but uncompromising is a path to chaos. Teaching a person who is older than me and puts the wrong emphasis (based on their "rules") is a questionable creative action. If you graduated from a university, then you didn't always correct the wrong teachers.

Likes: 1

30.08.2007 17:08, Tentator

Tentator
Just watched a movie about the Dresden bombing: so you want to convince me that reason, conscience and justice rule the world? During sexual intercourse, the scientist remains a scientist and replays the entire physiology of events in his head? And Pavlov, who believed in God, was a semi-scholar? Like Bohr, who attended synagogue? Not to mention Newton, who - I hate to think of it - sometimes drew pentagrams at night... You don't need to build houses made of ivory, look down from them and write some myths about a special caste of people called "scientists" - it looks ridiculous. Compromise is not a deal with conscience, but uncompromising is a path to chaos. Teaching a person who is older than me and puts the wrong emphasis (based on their "rules") is a questionable creative action. If you graduated from a university, then you didn't always correct the wrong teachers.

Unfortunately, the things you write about are still very typical for Russian science, mainly for provincial science. Your opponent is always right, if he is the boss or older than you, and you sit and do not dare to make a sound, otherwise it is dangerous – a typical example of Soviet psychology. And the methods are also characteristic: take them out of context, put them under a different name; if this is beneficial, then things that were previously agreed with become "their own" rules." And the truth is generally a utopia. Chekhov wrote that all his life he had been squeezing the slave out of himself bit by bit. I strongly advise many of my compatriots to follow his example and push with all their might.

What do I care what rules the world? The main thing is that reason, conscience and justice rule in my head, soul and in my office. This topic has nothing to do with scientific ethics, and your position directly contradicts this ethics. You either think very badly of people or are surrounded by scoundrels. A scientist who does not give up an erroneous idea, prefers his authority and respectability to the truth, of course, is a scoundrel, and this is exactly what you write about. All scientific ethics is connected with the absolute primacy of truth over all other spheres of existence of the scientific community, starting with the primacy of discovery and ending with the rules of citation. Wallace gave priority to Darwin, not because he was older and more official, but because he was indeed the first to discover natural selection.

fly-km
Culture can be a subject for scientific research, but it cannot be the basis of science itself. I know excellent taxonomists who don't know Latin grammar at all, and I know a very ordinary taxonomist who speaks fluent Latin. Lomonosov used foul language and threw empty barrels at his opponents. Plavilshchikov actually killed a man. And this is nothing compared to the fact that now in Russia you can count on your fingers the botanists who are able to make a Latin diagnosis of a new species without "tracing paper". So what? Are you trying to convince me that everyone else isn't a real scholar because they don't know Latin grammar and don't put the right emphasis on certain words? Nonsense!

You know, if you make a thought experiment and put next to a large taxonomist of the 19th century, who knew Latin perfectly and wrote his works on it, a modern large taxonomist, then 99 cases out of 100 the" size " of the latter will immediately disappear somewhere. I wonder why that would be? I can't say anything about Lomonosov, the times were dark, fleas jumped on people.. And Plavilshchikov didn't kill anyone, that's a legend. He threatened with a gun a man who was going to steal the salary of museum employees.

Likes: 1

31.08.2007 2:25, Juglans

Tentator
Yes, I was mistaken - I didn't kill the Smelters, but only seriously wounded them. But the wonderful phrase: "He threatened a man with a gun who was going to steal the salary of museum employees"

- is this about Kozhevnikov?!

"All scientific ethics is connected with the absolute primacy of truth over all other spheres of existence of the scientific community"
Yes, but only there can be many truths. Cuvier defended his, Saint-Hilaire his. You are blurring the boundaries between truth and hypothesis. Can we say that Lyubishchev wrote only about the truth? Or the same Darwin? If I assign the genus A to the family C, and another researcher to the family B-I wonder where the criteria for truth are?

"if you make a thought experiment and put next to a large taxonomist of the 19th century, who knew Latin perfectly and wrote his works on it, a modern large taxonomist, then 99 cases out of 100 the" size " of the latter immediately disappears somewhere."

I don't agree. Before the revolution, there were no such powerful figures in the taxonomy of moths in our country as, for example, Zagulyaev, leafhoppers like Kuznetsov, coccids like Borkhsenius, straight - winged birds like Mishchenko and Beibienko. I do not think that Kerzhner will concede in his knowledge to Kirichenko. There were only two really outstanding taxonomists in my field in the 19th century, and at least 5 in the 20th. Many taxonomists of the 19th century (especially the French) were extremely careless in their descriptions, formally referring to the types - as a result, the "porridge" they created still cannot be sold. This is the case with radiolarians, foraminifera, calcareous sponges, many groups of mollusks, etc. In my group, 80% of all species described in the 19th century are either invalid, questionable, or unclear: Latin diagnoses of 3-4 sentences, when the normal description is at least two pages-this is ridiculous!

"You either think very badly of people or are surrounded by scoundrels."
Yes, I really think badly of people, among whom there are a lot of scoundrels. Everywhere-both with us and with you. I had to communicate with dismissed Zinovites (by the way, some were outstanding taxonomists) - I read denunciations written by SUCH scientists, who are still considered the honor and conscience of Russian science. Here, in the provinces, the most inveterate bastards come from European universities...
"I'm so old that I still found decent people" (F. R.) - I was much less lucky. There are decent people among scientists, but there are not many of them. To make sure that a person is decent, you need to work with them for at least a few years. Ethics is just a tool to mitigate negative feelings towards colleagues and opponents. Often, scientists are PERSONALLY offended when their ideas are criticized (not them, as people, as individuals, but only their ideas). Resentment results in ignoring messages, articles, caustic comments in reviews, etc. Everyone has long known about the strained relations between Muscovites and St. Petersburg residents (I won't specify in what areas, but in some cases we are even talking about the inability to work with collections and submit an article to a certain magazine). The first head of our department could not defend his doctorate for 9 years, because he got into a conflict between Leningrad and Moscow parasitologists (both of them considered him a native of a hostile school).
And I don't like people at all for their attitude to nature.

Likes: 4