[Taxacom] FW: formation of zoological names with Mc, Mac, et

[dipteryx at freeler.nl]

Van: Stephen Thorpe [mailto:s.thorpe at auckland.ac.nz]
Verzonden: do 3-9-2009 10:28

>>so you disagree with commissioner Zhang
>correct, I disgree about the existence of "taxonomic vandals"
>(or at least who they are)

>>but nevertheless  you "[intend to use this quote] to back up 
>>my general claim that there are many holes in the Code
>correct again

>>How can something that does not exist back up a claim?
>It can't, but that is not my logic here! 

***
So much the worse! Normally, logic only applies to items that exist 
(in the universe that the logic applies to)
* * *

>Zhi-Qiang and I agree that there are many logical holes in the Code. 

***
Actually, that is not apparent from the quote, which is about holes 
(in what is regulated and what is not regulated) that 'taxonomic vandals' 
can find and use to publish their names. There is no implication 
whatsoever that the Code has logical holes.
* * *

>Hence his opinion backs up my assertion of the existence of such 
>holes. He goes on to claim that there are "taxonomic vandals" who
>deliberately try to exploit those holes. I disagree. Clear???

***
I am sure there is a technical term for this kind of reasoning error.
* * * 

[Paul said] Most likely it is a planning error,
>>a severe underestimation of the complexity of the field, and 
>>especially of the amount of work involved in the proper gathering 
>>of data (the "we are investing in the infrastructure, the data will
>>take care of itself" approach)

[reply] I wholeheartedly agree with you that this is a major problem, 
>but I also think that databases presuppose a level of logical 
>consistency that is unfortunately lacking in the Code, and this is also 
>a source of problems...

***
Ah, the problems that databases have is not in the databases but in what 
they were (not) set up to document ...? The eternal lament of all too 
many failed software projects.

Paul