Timeline for Why the taboo against naming discoveries after yourself?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2018 at 21:13 | history | edited | Superbest | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Apr 12, 2018 at 12:28 | comment | added | Nat | While appears to be true that GFAJ-1 was controversial and that the discoverer named it after themself, it appears that the controversy was centered around the extraordinary biochemical claims about GFAJ-1 that were then refuted by other research groups rather than the name itself. And while naming something after oneself tends to be rather poor form, that particular name appears to have been humorous, making it less objectionable. | |
| Feb 26, 2016 at 19:18 | history | edited | Superbest | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 24 characters in body
|
| Jan 30, 2015 at 7:51 | history | edited | ff524 |
edited tags; edited tags
|
|
| Dec 21, 2014 at 14:17 | comment | added | Matthew Leingang | Is there an existing word for this (discouraged) practice? I suggested autoeponymity at one point. | |
| Dec 21, 2014 at 3:32 | comment | added | Pharap | Do you have any links to sites where it is mentioned that this practise is considered taboo? | |
| Dec 20, 2014 at 15:28 | comment | added | user2813274 | related | |
| Dec 20, 2014 at 13:48 | comment | added | Steve Jessop | @Doc: It would be cool if Newton had published the first one as "Newton's law of motion", with great fanfare and trumpeting, received his knighthood, and then came back "oh, hang on a minute, we're going to need another one". Then five years later, "look, you're not going to believe this..." | |
| Dec 20, 2014 at 8:31 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackAcademia/status/546221347723304960 | ||
| Dec 20, 2014 at 5:05 | comment | added | Doc | @SteveJessop Why not? Newton got a first, second, and third law; why can't I have a first, second, and third effect? ;P | |
| Dec 20, 2014 at 0:52 | comment | added | Superbest | @CapeCode Not just related, but inspired this one! | |
| Dec 20, 2014 at 0:50 | vote | accept | Superbest | ||
| Dec 19, 2014 at 21:35 | comment | added | Cape Code | Related: academia.stackexchange.com/q/34547/10643 | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 21:23 | answer | added | supercat | timeline score: 28 | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 20:12 | comment | added | Steve Jessop | Btw, as well as being frowned on it's probably unwise. What if you name something the "Jones effect" and then a couple of years later discover an even more important effect? You call it "Jones's second effect" and look a proper charlie? ;-) Whereas if the name is informal and takes a while to be taken up, you still have a shot that the important one ends up called the "Jones effect". | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 19:13 | answer | added | BrianH | timeline score: 18 | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 18:54 | comment | added | Moriarty | @Superbest my guess is that that is a rather pompous approach to things. It's your peers that should decide if it is an important enough discovery to earn a perpetual name. | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 18:44 | history | edited | Superbest | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 227 characters in body
|
| Dec 19, 2014 at 18:37 | comment | added | Superbest | @Moriarty True, and I am wondering: Why not just cut to the chase, and name it after yourself to make discussion easier? Given how often communities choose to go with that convention, one suspects it facilitates discourse. If it facilitates discourse, why not obtain that facilitation sooner, by naming it yourself? | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 18:33 | comment | added | Superbest | @Compass In fact Shh was named that because the mutant fly embryo looks spiny - this doesn't explain exactly what it does (though already suggests a central developmental role!) but then expecting it to is unfair, since its function was not well known when it was named. Anyhow, have you ever had discussions about "Jones model, Smith model and the model I propose"? That is where the utility is supposed to be. | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 16:57 | answer | added | Anonymous Mathematician | timeline score: 25 | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 16:44 | answer | added | Peter Jansson | timeline score: 30 | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 16:44 | answer | added | jakebeal | timeline score: 17 | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 16:41 | comment | added | Compass | Sonic Hedgehog is something from biology. Can you tell me what it is? If you're going to name it after yourself, or something, it helps to indicate what it's about. Newton's theory of gravity. Jones Effect of double-frying fries. | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 16:35 | comment | added | Moriarty | My impression is that many such names are given to the discovery after the fact. The first paper to cite the initial discovery might call it the "Jones effect" for the sake of brevity, and so the name sticks. | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 16:22 | comment | added | Superbest | @AustinHenley My question is about those things for which having an explicit name is very convenient. | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 16:21 | comment | added | Austin Henley | Does everything need an explicit name? | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 16:18 | comment | added | Superbest | @Alexandros Like I said, ever so often one makes a legitimate discovery which is difficult to name in a descriptive fashion. In such cases, especially when comparing a new, tentative discovery to others, it seems like naming it after yourself is the best (pun intended) option. | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 16:02 | comment | added | Alexandros | Why you would think the "Superbest" phenomenon would be a good name for something? Jokes aside, naming things after yourself is best reserved for cranks and not scientists. | |
| Dec 19, 2014 at 15:57 | history | asked | Superbest | CC BY-SA 3.0 |