Preface THERE WAS VIRTUALLY NO GOOGLE, AND NO WIKIPEDIA THEN SEEMINGLY CENTURIES ago, when the previous edition of this dictionary came out in 2001. And of the respected dictionaries, very little was"posted on the Internet. Hard to believe. How did we manage, how could we ever have worked? But we did, we surely did: with open minds, critical sense, intellectual rigor.. No google or wiki or nformation technology (Ir) whatsoever will change that. The need to do the epidemiological work with"that Now we have thousands of webs and wikis with millions of papers, definitions, and discussions regarding terms at ourvery fingertips. Many are truly authoritative. You'll find them-some, selected-duly referenced at the end of this book.Yes, we googled and used the wikipedia, ""surfed"and"visited"many remote, beautiful places. To surf, to post . whew, these terms will soon be obsolete, won't they? We continue to seek and to find meaning: in PubMed/Medline, in online textbooks and websites. Foremost, within the main dictionaries, -which we read often while writing this new edition, and which I hope you will always use in case of doubt or simply to enrich the definitions that we offer here(See pages 265 and 273-289. At-and through-"places"such as High Wire, ScienceDirect Scopus, SciELO, ProQuest, Synergy, ISI Web of knowledge, Google, Yahoo, Live Search.. what yesterday was an unthinkable utopia has become an "achievable utopia, "in many places actually achieved daily: the infinite library, and with it the unlimited dictionary too. I wish Borges were alive to enjoy it, if not actually to see it. since he was blind So what sense does it make, to craft a dictionary? Simple: in a radically new way, the"IEA dictionary, ""Lasts dictionary"can be as relevant--or more so as it has been before. Because we have again, as always, critically listened and read, thought, discussed, and selected terms, meanings and definitions. With"that open minds, critical sense, common sense, intellectual rigor, creativity, flexibility, raftsmanship. . And because nowadays, with more"noise "than ever in history, sifting, decanting-selection with"that-is more valuable than ever before. You will judge, but writing this dictionary confirmed to me that it was perfectly feasible to achieve a normative purpose and an informative one. With help of the highest possible academic level from many colleagues(duly acknowledged later), I tried to integrate two approaches to dictionary making: expert-opinion-based prescription (to aid production) and corpus-based description(to aid decoding).Meanings of scientific terms need to be proposed and may occasionally be imposed--on the basis of expert advice; yet expertThere was virtually no Google, and no Wikipedia then, seemingly centuries ago, when the previous edition of this dictionary came out in 2001. And of the respected dictionaries, very little was “posted on the Internet.” Hard to believe. How did we manage, how could we ever have worked? But we did, we surely did: with open minds, critical sense, intellectual rigor. . . . No google or wiki or information technology (IT) whatsoever will change that. The need to do the epidemiological work with “that.” Now we have thousands of webs and wikis with millions of papers, defi nitions, and discussions regarding terms at our very fi ngertips. Many are truly authoritative. You’ll fi nd them – some, selected – duly referenced at the end of this book. Yes, we googled and used the Wikipedia, “surfed” and “visited” many remote, beautiful places. To surf, to post . . . whew, these terms will soon be obsolete, won’t they? We continue to seek and to fi nd meaning: in PubMed/Medline, in online textbooks and websites. Foremost, within the main dictionaries,1–3 which we read often while writing this new edition, and which I hope you will always use in case of doubt or simply to enrich the defi nitions that we offer here (See pages 265 and 273–289). At—and through—“places” such as HighWire, ScienceDirect, Scopus, SciELO, ProQuest, Synergy, ISI Web of knowledge, Google, Yahoo, Live Search . . . what yesterday was an unthinkable utopia has become an “achievable utopia,” in many places actually achieved daily: the infi nite library, and with it the unlimited dictionary too. I wish Borges were alive to enjoy it, if not actually to see it, since he was blind. So what sense does it make, to craft a dictionary? Simple: in a radically new way, the “IEA dictionary,” “Last’s dictionary” can be as relevant—or more so— as it has been before. Because we have again, as always, critically listened and read, thought, discussed, and selected terms, meanings and defi nitions. With “that”: open minds, critical sense, common sense, intellectual rigor, creativity, fl exibility, craftsmanship. . . . And because nowadays, with more “noise” than ever in history, sifting, decanting—selection with “that”—is more valuable than ever before. You will judge, but writing this dictionary confi rmed to me that it was perfectly feasible to achieve a normative purpose and an informative one. With help of the highest possible academic level from many colleagues (duly acknowledged later), I tried to integrate two approaches to dictionary making: expert-opinion-based prescription (to aid production) and corpus-based description (to aid decoding).395 Meanings of scientifi c terms need to be proposed —and may occasionally be imposed—on the basis of expert advice; yet experts Preface ix