3 ms·
Honestly, this isn't about that. People not getting credit for their discoveries is so common it has a "law": "Stigler's law of eponymy",[1] states that "no sc
by leereeves 2y ago
Honestly, this isn't about that. People not getting credit for their discoveries is so common it has a "law":
"Stigler's law of eponymy",[1] states that "no scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler's_law_of_eponymy
This is really about the search for role models for women in science. And in that regard, Franklin is worth mentioning.
- marcellus23 2y agoHow is this not "about" that? The headline of the article is literally calling it a "ripoff." The GP's comment is exactly what the article is discussing. No one is arguing Franklin is not worth mentioning.
- leereeves 2y agoI'm talking about subtext. The implicit meaning in this article is that women in science were disrespected (in general and in this case). Whether a man was also disrespected is not relevant to that conversation.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- marcellus23 2y agoThe man in question is one of the ones vilified (accurately or not) in the linked article. So it's relevant for someone to talk about, in a comment on the article, whether or not that vilification is appropriate.
- leereeves 2y ago> The man in question is one of the ones vilified (accurately or not) in the linked article. So it's relevant for someone to talk about, in a comment on the article, whether or not that vilification is appropriate Gosling is far from being vilified in the linked article. He's only mentioned three times, and one of those is "those who deserve the most credit for deciphering the DNA molecule are Wilkins, Franklin, and Gosling".