Re: Future of Species paper

Thom Quinn (
Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:47:00 -0600

Actually, there are several specialized philosophy journals, such as The Philosophy of Biology, that have had quite a number of "species papers" for the past 25 years. The big issue has been if species can be considered a "class" or an "individual" concept.

Science has a metaphysics too! Philosophers and Scientists need to keep each other in check sometimes.

Thom Quinn

Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> Max More, Ph.D. wrote:
> > I recently completed a draft of a paper that I'm going to send to
> > philosophy journals. I want to get it off ASAP, but I'd appreciate
> > feedback before doing so.
> I'm not sure why you would submit suggestions for new species
> classifications to philosophy journals. I realize that your expertise
> is in philosophy, but if this is a serious suggestion for the extension
> to the biological nomenclature, you need to send it for peer-review to
> those who develop and confirm said nomenclature. Unless the philosophy
> journals you are considering are specifically intended to address the
> philosophy of biological nomenclature, I would suggest that your
> submission might be misdirected.
> If it has not been reviewed by a biologist, and if you do not have
> specific training in biological nomenclature, you could easily be
> including very basic mistakes in your paper that would mar its serious
> consideration. Just as an example, are you aware that biologists curse
> the term "homosexual" as being unscientific? It uses the Latin root
> instead of the Greek prefix as do the terms "asexual," "bisexual,"
> "heterosexual," "polysexual," and the like. Whoever invented this term
> did not know the proper biological conventions. If you are not trained
> in biological nomenclature, you could be making similar mistakes.
> As with any international standards, there are committees and
> international agreements within the scientific community as to which
> standards are acceptable and which are being developed. If you publish
> your suggestions outside the system, this could also mar its serious
> reception. Imagine if someone published a suggested change to
> astronomical nomenclature on their own, or to mathematical notation on
> their own. It would not only be ignored, but would probably be directly
> denounced by the standards bodies as being apocryphal and unapproved.
> They may even pass a standard against its use. The committee that
> developed HTML was so angered by Netscape and Microsoft publishing "HTML
> 3 compliant" browsers before the standard approval and with unofficial
> and conflicting extensions, that they skipped version 3 and proclaimed
> that any product claiming "HTML 3" was fraudulent.
> I don't mean to sound negative here, but I just wanted to warn you about
> some of the pitfalls you might encounter in proposing scientific
> nomenclature if you are not aware of the proper procedures to do this.
> --
> Harvey Newstrom <> <>
> Author, Engineer, Entrepreneur, Consultant, Researcher, Scientist.