Going on an antedate
Going on an antedate
复制标题
进行提前约会
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. A. Kurland
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Weiss;J. A. Kurland
1700 年代中期，英语相当失控。由于没有令人满意的参考，词义不清楚。就连莎士比亚对于大多数读者来说也已经变得有些晦涩难懂了。因此，知识分子塞缪尔·约翰逊让投资者相信，基于改进原则的英语词典将在商业上取得成功。现有的词典基于“情感谱系”，因为作者随着时间的推移复制了作者。相反，约翰逊主张采取一种反映“思想史”的方法，这个术语似乎是他创造的（图 1）。 《Johnson’s》于 1755 年问世，成为标准词典长达一个世纪左右。他通过使用该词的历史例子来展示该词不断变化的含义。在科学和文学中，随着时间的推移，意义可能会变得模糊。也许比单词定义更成问题、更难追踪的是概念的变化。一个有趣的例子是 HardyWeinberg 原理 (HW)。在教授完达尔文进化论、孟德尔遗传、分子生物学和物种形成的基础知识后，学生们通常会接触到 HW。我们将其作为稳定的遗传基线（HW 平衡）来教授，偏离它会导致定义进化的变化。然而，由于它将出现在考试中，许多学生（甚至是那些醒着的学生）只将 HW 视为对他们平均成绩的代数威胁。一名学生抱怨道：“让我说清楚。”当什么都没发生的时候。 。 。没有任何改变吗？几十年来，教科书一直在教授 HW，因为它一直在被教授。这是我们教学遗产的一部分，但它的意义和基本原理已经隐藏在过去尘封的期刊文章中。忽略它似乎是不可想象的。但为什么？要明白这一点，我们必须回到现代遗传学的起源。
In the mid-1700s, the English language was rather out of control. In the absence of a satisfactory reference, word meanings were unclear. Even Shakespeare had already become somewhat obscure to most readers. So the intellectual-abouttown, Samuel Johnson, convinced investors that an English dictionary based on improved principles would be commercially successful. Existing dictionaries were based on ‘‘a genealogy of sentiments,’’ as author had copied author over time. Instead, Johnson argued for an approach that reflected ‘‘intellectual history,’’ a term he appears to have coined (Fig. 1). Appearing in 1755, ‘‘Johnson’s’’ became the standard dictionary for about a century. He showed a word’s evolving meaning by using historical examples of its usage. In science as well as literature, meaning can become blurred over time. Perhaps even more problematic and harder to trace than word definitions are changes in concepts. An interesting example is the HardyWeinberg principle (HW). After teaching the essentials of Darwinian evolution, Mendelian inheritance, molecular biology, and speciation, students are routinely introduced to HW. We teach it as a stable genetic baseline, the HW equilibrium, deviation from which leads to the changes that define evolution. However, since it will be on the test, many students (even those who are awake) see HW only as an algebraic threat to their grade-point average. As one student griped, ‘‘Let me get this straight. When nothing happens . . . nothing changes? Duh.’’ Over decades of textbooks, HW appears to be taught largely because it always has been taught. It’s part of our pedagogic heritage, but its meaning and rationale have become hidden in the dusty volumes of past journal articles. It seems unthinkable to omit it. But why? To see that, we have to go back to the origin of modern genetics.