E-mail: Password: Create an Account Recover password

About Authors Contacts Get involved Русская версия

show

Scientific ethics

Community and ForumOther questions. Insects topicsScientific ethics

Pages: 1 2

06.09.2007 5:39, Juglans

le_lapin
Who said that there can only be one truth? It has long been known in mathematics that a true statement may not be the only one that is true. The fact that the rainbow consists of 7 colors may be true, but it is subjective, because it depends on our senses and formal attitudes: some peoples distinguish only 6, and others-10. Is the statement "Tokyo is the capital of Japan" true? - yes AND NO.

06.09.2007 6:30, le lapin

I don't see the point in arguing without agreeing on concepts. I proceed from the use of words in Russian. Tentator, apparently, too. You have your own ideas about the meaning of the words "true", "true", "true". Hence your disagreement.

Otherwise, do you agree with me?

06.09.2007 9:36, Juglans

See Ozhegov:
TRUE:
1. Adequate reflection in the consciousness of the perceiver of what exists objectively
PS. I doubt that systematics and the Latin language exist objectively

2. The same as the truth.

3. A statement or judgment proven by practice or experience.

That is, your phrase "You have your own ideas about the meaning of the words "truth"..." not to me. But "what really is" is a strange phrase. The pit by the road, let's say - this is the truth, because it really is. Buried - there is no such truth. And your idea is not the truth, because whether it really exists or not - who knows?

About the rest:

"But the same graduate student could make comments in a backroom conversation, and publicly criticize only in essence."
That's what I did at first (I wrote an appendix to the official review), but she publicly said that I was wrong. I responded to her publicly.
"You don't need to put anyone in their place..."
Alas, it is difficult: I am also a zoology teacher at a university... that is, I am in doubt about what to do. But I'll figure it out.
"In general, a strange impression is created from this correspondence. Everyone is trying to divert the topic somewhere else."
I agree - the intelligentsia's favorite activity is to look around.

06.09.2007 11:06, Понтий Пилат

What is truth? (С)

06.09.2007 11:52, Ale-x

In general, a strange impression is created from this correspondence. Everyone is trying to divert the topic somewhere else.


The oddities began even at the moment when the question of correct accents in Latin was somehow linked to scientific ethics.

Uncompromising may be the path to chaos (c), but to understand each other, you really need to agree on terms first. The question of emphasis itself has nothing to do with ethics. That's when you want to correct someone's incorrect (in your opinion) accent - then you can think about whether it's ethical.

Latin has been around for three or four thousand years, including fifteen hundred years as a dead language. But while it was alive, it changed like any other language, including its pronunciation. If now there are disputes about which accent in a dead language is correct, then this is certainly an interesting philological question, but IMHO it hardly has anything to do with biology. The main thing here is that fellow scientists should use the Latin term for exactly the same thing, and how they place the accents - is it so important? Won't the whole dispute then turn into a dispute between the blunt-ends and the pointy-ends? Understand the meaning of the word cervinus, and does an incorrect accent in it change anything in the meaning of the statement?

It's another matter if you use your accents to judge whether you belong to a particular scientific clan, and you can identify your own people in this way. Here, yes, it is necessary to emphasize ethics, the principles of building a clan, identification signs, turnouts, passwords, internal and external showdowns, the establishment, the hierarchy of authorities, methods of managing the recalcitrant... Only this is a DIFFERENT problem.

This post was edited by Ale-x-06.09.2007 14: 03
Likes: 5

06.09.2007 16:15, Juglans

Ale-x
Really wanted to discuss the specifics (I started posting them), but ... everything came together either in ethics, or in the proposal to learn how to conjugate and incline correctly frown.gif

06.09.2007 19:40, Tentator

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" wink.gif- is this about Kozhevnikov?!

I have heard exactly this version of this story, and the rest of the versions quoted here are known from Kozhevnikov's own words. You don't think well of people, so why do you think well of Kozhevnikov?
Tentator
doesn't agree. Before the revolution, there were no such powerful figures in the systematics of moles in our country

Of course. Before the revolution, there were very few taxonomists at all. But what taxonomists they were! I don't want to belittle the merits of the people you listed, especially since you listed only those who worked at ZINA, an institute with great traditions and an unbroken succession of generations. But still, who can be put next to, for example, Yakobson or Semenov-Tian-Shansky, even from the most outstanding modern Russian coleopterologists? The level of erudition (and it is here that the origins of scientific intuition) was not at all the same. An outstanding contemporary taxonomist of Zinoviev's said that his predecessor had arranged the collection by eye according to a system that was confirmed by the long work of this modern taxonomist on the study of genitalia. You know, there was a Swedish scientist in my group, about whom my supervisor says: "If your conclusions differ from his system, check yourself twice."
At first, everyone treated the types carelessly, or rather, they simply did not distinguish them. Short descriptions? Well, if you are a taxonomist, you should understand the reason. If a species is described that differs very well from all other species in the genus, then there is no point in detailed descriptions. When dozens of new species are subsequently found that are close to this old species, they begin to curse the author who described it. Poorly classified unicellular animals? You would also accuse Ivanovsky of not developing a virus system.
Here you are somewhat mistaken. "Before the superiors, the subordinate should look stupid and distressed" - this was formulated long before the "scoop". Ask your colleagues who work abroad, they probably can also tell you something interesting about this. Although outwardly" they " have a looser relationship between their superiors and subordinates.

This was formulated 300 years ago and we tried to get rid of it for all 300 years, but the monstrous size of this psychology reached in our country during the Soviet period is incomparable to anything else. And what difference does it make where else slave psychology is cultivated and what is its history? It doesn't have to be that way and that's it!
le_lapin
Who said that there can only be one truth? It has long been known in mathematics that a true statement may not be the only one that is true. The fact that the rainbow consists of 7 colors may be true, but it is subjective, because it depends on our senses and formal attitudes: some peoples distinguish only 6, and others-10. Is the statement "Tokyo is the capital of Japan" true? "yes and no.

You're talking about cultural traditions. This has nothing to do with scientific knowledge and its truth. Scientific truths can not be several, there may be hypotheses, theories, etc., but the truth is always one. Are you saying that Euclidean geometry and Lobachevsky geometry are two different truths, like Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics? Go tell it to a math or physics major. What is the criterion of truth in assigning a given genus to different families by different authors? Well, if you are not building a system on a whim, then you must prove the need to assign this type of system here. If you can't study all the species in this genus, or you can't get enough taxonomic information, or you can't process it properly, and your colleague is facing the same problems, then there are disagreements. But the band evolved in only one way. And science does not stand still and sooner or later will find ways to receive and process information about your kind. And then who will remember your differences and the duality of truth?
"In general, a strange impression is created from this correspondence. Everyone is trying to divert the topic somewhere else."
I agree - the intelligentsia's favorite activity is to look around.

You started the mess with ethics.
 
Latin has been around for three or four thousand years, including fifteen hundred years as a dead language. But while it was alive, it changed like any other language, including its pronunciation. If now there are disputes about which accent in a dead language is correct, then this is certainly an interesting philological question, but IMHO it hardly has anything to do with biology. The main thing here is that fellow scientists should use the Latin term for exactly the same thing, and how they place the accents - is it so important? Won't the whole dispute then turn into a dispute between the blunt-ends and the pointy-ends? Understand the meaning of the word cervinus, and does an incorrect accent in it change anything in the meaning of the statement?


You are absolutely right, ethics has nothing to do with it. Discussion of the rules of Latin pronunciation makes sense only for the unification of this very pronunciation with the simplest goal of understanding each other's speech, this was already mentioned in the topic from which this conversation was taken out for some reason. Well, of course, I understand if you say "plautia" instead of "plautia", but in the speech of a native speaker of another language, especially when there is no way to visualize the word, it can be impossible to guess what is being said. If the pronunciation is unified, then based on what? Indeed, Latin has a long history and has sometimes changed very much and, like almost any evolving system, has passed through the stages of formation, flourishing and decline (I gave a brief sketch of its development in the previous topic). And wouldn't it be most reasonable to choose the grammatical norm of a dead language as the norm of its highest flourishing? Why do we use the norms of this particular period of language development to write words, but we must pronounce them according to medieval rules that came to us from Germany? As for pronunciation as a clan identification mark, there should be no "clans" in science. Science should be organized on the principles of reason, and not the relations of domestic punks.

06.09.2007 19:53, Ale-x

And what difference does it make where else slave psychology is cultivated and what is its history? It doesn't have to be that way and that's it!

Discussion of the rules of Latin pronunciation makes sense only for the unification of this very pronunciation with the simplest goal of understanding each other's speech, this was already mentioned in the topic from which this conversation was taken out for some reason. Well, of course, I understand if you say "plautia" instead of "plautia", but in the speech of a native speaker of another language, especially when there is no way to visualize the word, it can be impossible to guess what is being said. If the pronunciation is unified, then based on what? Indeed, Latin has a long history and has sometimes changed very much and, like almost any evolving system, has passed through the stages of formation, flourishing and decline (I gave a brief sketch of its development in the previous topic). And wouldn't it be most reasonable to choose the grammatical norm of a dead language as the norm of its highest flourishing? Why do we use the norms of this particular period of language development to write words, but we must pronounce them according to medieval rules that came to us from Germany? As for pronunciation as a clan identification mark, there should be no "clans" in science. Science should be organized on the principles of reason, and not the relations of domestic punks.


What a rigid man you are!

1. If you raise the question of unification of pronunciation, then only a conference can solve it, and an international one at that, if you see a problem in the speech of a native speaker of another language. You can only campaign individually for a particular system if you are in favor of calling such a conference.

2. In the scientific community, as in any other social structure, there are certain patterns of development, and clannishness is an integral part of it. You may think that this should not be the case, but this is just a symbolic imperative, and not a real state of affairs. Of course, we don't like to talk about it, but if we are honest scientists, it is impossible to turn a blind eye to the real facts, just on the grounds that we don't like them.

06.09.2007 20:18, Tentator

What a rigid man you are!

1. If you raise the question of unification of pronunciation, then only a conference can solve it, and an international one at that, if you see a problem in the speech of a native speaker of another language. You can only campaign individually for a particular system if you are in favor of calling such a conference.

2. In the scientific community, as in any other social structure, there are certain patterns of development, and clannishness is an integral part of it. You may think that this should not be the case, but this is just a symbolic imperative, and not a real state of affairs. Of course, we don't like to talk about it, but if we are honest scientists, it is impossible to turn a blind eye to the real facts, just on the grounds that we don't like them.


The funny thing about this whole conversation is that there was just such a conference.

Well, if a clan is the same as, say, a science school, then yes. But from what ideas about the evolution of science did you conclude that their representatives should divide the scientific world into strangers and their own, quarrel, arrange showdowns?

Rigor is more productive than pofigizma and between them usually lies mediocrity.
Likes: 1

06.09.2007 20:26, Ale-x

The funny thing about this whole conversation is that there was just such a conference.

Well, if a clan is the same as, say, a science school, then yes. But from what ideas about the evolution of science did you conclude that their representatives should divide the scientific world into strangers and their own, quarrel, arrange showdowns?

Rigor is more productive than pofigizma and between them usually lies mediocrity.


Sorry, I'm not an entomologist. If there was a conference, what is the bazaar about? confused.gif You have to obey and do it, that's all. Or hadn't she made up her mind?

I don't think that a clan is the same as a school, because a school by definition comes from a certain Teacher, and a clan can be organized according to other principles: by common interests, for example, and represent not a school, but a more or less loose union or consortium. As for the ideas about the evolution of science, I must admit that I do not yet fully understand how it actually evolves. I just see that there are clans, and not only in our country, but also in the United States, for example. In a nearby topic, someone named NMR_guy just raised this topic today. Therefore, it is an objective fact that must be understood, described, and explained.

This post was edited by Ale-x-06.09.2007 20: 27

Pages: 1 2

New comment

Note: you should have a Insecta.pro account to upload new topics and comments. Please, create an account or log in to add comments.

* Our website is multilingual. Some comments have been translated from other languages.

Random species of the website catalog

Insecta.pro: international entomological community. Terms of use and publishing policy.

Project editor in chief and administrator: Peter Khramov.

Curators: Konstantin Efetov, Vasiliy Feoktistov, Svyatoslav Knyazev, Evgeny Komarov, Stan Korb, Alexander Zhakov.

Moderators: Vasiliy Feoktistov, Evgeny Komarov, Dmitriy Pozhogin, Alexandr Zhakov.

Thanks to all authors, who publish materials on the website.

© Insects catalog Insecta.pro, 2007—2024.

Species catalog enables to sort by characteristics such as expansion, flight time, etc..

Photos of representatives Insecta.

Detailed insects classification with references list.

Few themed publications and a living blog.