Naming new concepts and entities after oneself

[Mr. Ignorant]

A lot of times when scientists discover or invent something, it's common that this concept or entity is named after the one that has discovered or invented it. Why is this? Why not give it a sensible name instead? It's only making it more difficult to learn new concepts and entities. It's as if the theory of relativity was called the Einstein theory. The theory of relativity makes it a lot more meaningful in an instant.

For example

Hardy-Weinberg principle
Rescorla-Wanger theory
Korsakoff's Syndrome
Asperger Syndrome

are all meaningless.

Why do scientists let their ego's get in the way? Yes, I know it's mostly other scientists naming it after you (not yourself), but they probably only do this so that others will do the same for them.

It's bothering me a lot and I find it hard to keep on reading and learning when I notice this. IMO the one that discovered it, is not so important. It's the concept itself, how it relates to everything else. Please give meaningful names and don't poison science with your ego's.

Okay, that's just my point of view, but what do you think?

[labelwench]

From the perspective of the manner in which my own brain seems to form relationships between various pieces of information, I can appreciate the point that you have raised.

We name things in order that we may differentiate them from another thing which may be very similar.

With a large number of persons putting forth their own theories on any number of concepts, the historic precedent has been to name the theory after the proponent as a point of reference for others who may wish to participate in the dialogue. That we name such things as geographical features or concepts after persons is indeed a cultural tribute to the vanity of our species, IMO.

With the increasing use of computers and artificial intelligence, I might expect to see more numeric references in future.

Then again, the latest computer to challenge the human contestants was named 'Watson'.

Naming things may well be an attribute that defines our species, would be my thought of the moment.

[Mr. Ignorant]

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it.

Yes, I see that naming is needed to differentiate concepts from other concepts, but it's not necessary to use your own name. You name isn't probably that unique either. I can also see that's easy to just use your name instead of thinking about a good name (although I think ego issues are more important). But what if you're going to come up with several new theories and concepts? You can only use your name once. Are we done after having made one discovery? And if not, it doesn't make sense to name a theory or concept after yourself and then think of a good name (that actually means something) for other theories. You might as well be consistent.

If this naming system is needed to motivate scientists to discover new things (rather than something else), I would say that many scientists are only motivated to do science because if they discover something new they will become immortal (in a certain way) and popular (in order to get respect from fellow scientists). Scientists will not be motivated to do real science as much as they will be motivated to create a new theory (whether it's meaningful or not) for them to become immortal and known. I think a lot of useless theories and concepts (but seemingly useful) will be added to "science" that way. That doesn't seem scientific at all. Scientists should have a thirst and hunger for knowledge and truth, not a thirst and hunger for self-flattery. If you want to be popular, try to be a pop singer instead.

[labelwench]

An eponym is the name of a person, whether real or fictitious, after which a particular place, tribe, era, discovery, or other item is named or thought to be named.

In different cultures, time periods have often been named after the person who ruled during that period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eponym

We are a species that relates to everything personally, because that is how we experience things. Certainly we attempt to stand at arm's length and view things from a perspective outside of that of our experiencing, yet even that separation is only in our manner of thinking.

With the proliferation of human population and technological growth, the sheer volume of data to be contemplated may require a whole new means of categorizing and cataloging for easy reference, yet what is easier to remember than a successful 'brand'.

You mention popularity as a possible motivation, yet historically, anyone who has ventured beyond the mainstream of current thinking has often been ridiculed and denigrated in various manners. Perhaps in naming the concept after the proponent, society is giving belated recognition and respect to the proponent.

Actually, a scientist who goes where none has gone before would be a conceptual artist, would they not? Artists of all sorts are given certain 'license' in the promulgation of their work.

The list of scientific phenomena named after people is rather extensive.

http://www.book-of-thoth.com/thebook...after_people#A

[Mr. Ignorant]

An eponym is the name of a person, whether real or fictitious, after which a particular place, tribe, era, discovery, or other item is named or thought to be named.

In different cultures, time periods have often been named after the person who ruled during that period.

But does that mean that it's right to do so?

We are a species that relates to everything personally, because that is how we experience things. Certainly we attempt to stand at arm's length and view things from a perspective outside of that of our experiencing, yet even that separation is only in our manner of thinking.

I agree, but that doesn't necessarily have much to do with names. Personally I don't think that's good enough to justify naming new concepts after oneself.

With the proliferation of human population and technological growth, the sheer volume of data to be contemplated may require a whole new means of categorizing and cataloging for easy reference, yet what is easier to remember than a successful 'brand'.

Yes, I think about that sometimes too. It's really interesting to fantasize about, but it's quite hard to think beyond the current ontology system.

I think the only thing that makes a 'brand' easy to remember is the sheer repetition of the name.

You mention popularity as a possible motivation, yet historically, anyone who has ventured beyond the mainstream of current thinking has often been ridiculed and denigrated in various manners. Perhaps in naming the concept after the proponent, society is giving belated recognition and respect to the proponent.

You're right there. These people don't seek mainstream popularity, but popularity within a much smaller subgroup. It can still be seeking popularity. Controversial claims are often made by people who seek attention and popularity of some sort (despite being hated by a large group, but you can't please everyone at the same time), because they trigger a lot of responses from people that way.

Also I don't think that recognition and respect is given to the proponent just because he got to name a new discovery or invention.

Actually, a scientist who goes where none has gone before would be a conceptual artist, would they not? Artists of all sorts are given certain 'license' in the promulgation of their work.

"Are given". That doesn't justify it IMO. I also think science is a lot more serious than art, so I don't know if it's right to compare scientists to conceptual artists. They seem much more than that.

The list of scientific phenomena named after people is rather extensive.

Yes, wow, it's pretty disturbing.

I like how you speak for the other side though. It makes me think about it harder.

[labelwench]

I like how you speak for the other side though. It makes me think about it harder.

Originally posted by Mr. Ignorant

Thank you very much for recognizing that I attempt to understand why things are as they are by examining them from all perspectives.

What makes anything 'right' or 'not right' save the manner in which we are able to contemplate same?

You bring an interesting perspective regarding how things are named and what the motivation might be in so doing.

Have you given any thought as to what you might name the Theory of Everything, or any other theory, if it should come about that you were the sole proponent of the ultimate theory?

For any thing that proves unsatisfactory, an alternate must be available before change may proceed, based on previous experience and observation.

The problems are usually obvious, and the solutions remain less so.

[theunify]

Mr.Ignorant,

Keeping h your brain working requires your you ti to experience difficulty.

Such as doing puzzles and starting a hobby which requires precision.

These acrr activities which are difficult help our brains maintain themselves.

I sp ...

theunify
i