| Line 23 was replaced by line 23 |
| - So far so good, I hope. If we (i.e. the taxonomists) used this approach in the future, all the time, then concept inflation would be very high. Any kind of understanding across classifications would be localized in the lateral concept relationships. I think we can do better than that. |
| + So far so good, I hope. __If we (i.e. the taxonomists) used this approach in the future, all the time, then concept inflation would be very high. Any kind of understanding across classifications would be localized in the lateral concept relationships.__ I think we can do better than that. |
| Line 32 was replaced by line 32 |
| - What’s happened here is that Stone “borrowed” expertise from Manning. No individual taxonomist can know everything once the groups reach a certain size. The deliberate “borrowing” of expertise can and must happen all the time. A knowledgeable author should be allowed (as an option) in the future to make her own calls about borrowing and claiming, depending on her expertise and stated intentions to contribute to our taxonomic knowledge. Claiming is easier and cleaner but leads to more inflation and possibly less mutual understanding than borrowing. A conservative taxonomist will claim only if something is really (deeply) new, and borrow most everything else. This minimizes inflation. |
| + What’s happened here is that Stone “borrowed” expertise from Manning. No individual taxonomist can know everything once the groups reach a certain size. The deliberate “borrowing” of expertise can and must happen all the time. __A knowledgeable author should be allowed (as an option) in the future to make her own calls about borrowing and claiming, depending on her expertise and stated intentions to contribute to our taxonomic knowledge. Claiming is easier and cleaner but leads to more inflation and possibly less mutual understanding than borrowing. A conservative taxonomist will claim only if something is really (deeply) new, and borrow most everything else. This minimizes inflation.__ |
| Line 38 was replaced by line 38 |
| - Ok, I stuffed a number of scenarios into this example. What is going on? First of all, Stone (1997) was interested mostly in a genus-level revision. Let’s say he examined and accepted as “close enough” all species concepts authored by Manning in 1978. As you see, all of Stone’s “deferred” species concepts have Manning’s 10x -type GUIDs. Zero inflation at this level. So far so good. |
| + Ok, I stuffed a number of scenarios into this example. What is going on? First of all, Stone (1997) was interested mostly in a genus-level revision. Let’s say he examined and accepted as “close enough” all species concepts authored by Manning in 1978. As you see, all of Stone’s “deferred” species concepts have Manning’s 10x -type GUIDs. __Zero inflation at this level.__ So far so good. |
| Line 48 was replaced by line 48 |
| - Question: is there a sense in which Stone could still - should he so desire (it’s an option, not a must) - consider Juglandaceae sec. Manning (1978) to be the parent of Cyclocarya sec. Stone (1997)? |
| + __Question:__ is there a sense in which Stone could still - should he so desire (it’s an option, not a must) - consider Juglandaceae sec. Manning (1978) to be the parent of Cyclocarya sec. Stone (1997)? |
| Line 50 was replaced by line 50 |
| - Answer: ostensively - no! Manning never looked at Cyclocarya, and in any case failed to connect it as a child to his concept of Juglandaceae. But: intensionally, yes, it’s at least possible! What if Manning’s property-based definition of Juglandaceae was so precise and accurate that it clearly applies to the properties observed in Cyclocarya? Based on these properties, one can only conclude that Manning - whatever else he might have thought - would have had to identify Cyclocarya as a member of the walnut family. |
| + __Answer: ostensively - no!__ Manning never looked at Cyclocarya, and in any case failed to connect it as a child to his concept of Juglandaceae. __But: intensionally, yes, it’s at least possible!__ What if Manning’s property-based definition of Juglandaceae was so precise and accurate that it clearly applies to the properties observed in Cyclocarya? Based on these properties, one can only conclude that Manning - whatever else he might have thought - would have had to identify Cyclocarya as a member of the walnut family. |
| Line 52 was replaced by line 52 |
| - I’m raising an important relation here, upon which much of our mutual understanding in taxonomy rests. The question is: had a previous expert speaker seen this entity X (which she actually never did), how would she have classified it, and why? Together with the issue of borrowing vs. claiming expertise, these kinds of judgments make up a lot of the referential continuity among classifications and uses of taxonomic names, as we humans (inductively) perceive it and rely on it in conversations and all non-taxonomic publications. |
| + I’m raising an important relation here, upon which much of our mutual understanding in taxonomy rests. The question is: __had a previous expert speaker seen this entity X (which she actually never did), how would she have classified it, and why?__ Together with the issue of borrowing vs. claiming expertise, these kinds of judgments make up a lot of the referential continuity among classifications and uses of taxonomic names, as we humans (inductively) perceive it and rely on it in conversations and all non-taxonomic publications. |
| Line 62 was replaced by line 62 |
| - What we’re moving towards in this contentious case is the issue of permitting succeeding authors to untie existing parent/child connections, if (and maybe only if) the parent concepts also have intensional aspects to them, which would allow the taxonomist to reduce concept inflation by citing those parents as acceptable. They are acceptable only if one allows their ostensive (child-pointing) and intensional (property-inferring) aspects to be separated. The motivation for this is to minimize concept inflation, and maximize concept reuse. The more concepts are properly reused, the closer we get to creating a language that’s maximally superior to names. __This is a “parsimonious” concept approach - only author concepts when both the intensions and ostensions are new, otherwise cite existing ones. Note that example 4 makes a flexible “stopping rule” possible - stop authoring parents whenever you think there are congruent intensions.__ |
| + What we’re moving towards in this contentious case is the issue of __permitting succeeding authors to untie existing parent/child connections, if (and maybe only if) the parent concepts also have intensional aspects to them, which would allow the taxonomist to reduce concept inflation by citing those parents as acceptable.__ They are acceptable only if one allows their ostensive (child-pointing) and intensional (property-inferring) aspects to be separated. The motivation for this is to minimize concept inflation, and maximize concept reuse. The more concepts are properly reused, the closer we get to creating a language that’s maximally superior to names. __This is a “parsimonious” concept approach - only author concepts when both the intensions and ostensions are new, otherwise cite existing ones. Note that example 4 makes a flexible “stopping rule” possible - stop authoring parents whenever you think there are congruent intensions.__ |
| Line 64 was replaced by line 64 |
| - I think something like the AtomicTaxa - concepts without the ostensive chains - might be introduced in the database schema to isolate those intensional meanings from the ostensive ones. I’m fairly sure that the TDWG TES need not have this now, but ultimately the (optional!) approach hinted at above may offer more services to experts than the existing schemas. At least I hope it’s worth thinking about that. |
| + I think something like the __AtomicTaxa__ (which might be renamed as __IntensionalConcepts__) - concepts without the ostensive chains (also without vouchers) - might be introduced in the database schema to __isolate those intensional meanings from the ostensive ones.__ I’m fairly sure that the TDWG TES need not have this now, but ultimately the (optional!) approach hinted at above may offer more services to experts than the existing schemas. At least I hope it’s worth thinking about that. |
