From: Steve (steve@multisell.com)
Date: Fri May 05 2000 - 14:06:00 MDT
> Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 16:04:00 -0400
> From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> Subject: Re: Understanding Academia
>
> > Robin, an interesting post.
>
> Hey steve, can you please avoid posting three times every time you post
> to the list? Thanks..
OOPPPs, yes sorry, I didn't think any of then had been sent ... my ISP was
working erratically yesterday because of some love-bug. Because I have the
daily digest I don't get copies immediately to my inbox.
>
> Mike Lorrey
>
>
> Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 23:06:37 EDT
> From: CurtAdams@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Understanding Academia
>
> In a message dated 5/4/00 11:40:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> steve@multisell.com writes:
>
> > If an idea is genuinely new, then
> > there are not going to be a lot of "references" you can cite, and
academics
> > love references since they have a community bonding function.
>
> I disagree. You will usually find references from people
> who have tackled this problem in the past, and from people
> who have tried techniques like yours in other fields and
> areas. I don't think people ever come up with "genuinely
> new" ideas; all ideas are developed in the context of the
> tremendous body of knowledge in our heads and the even
> vaster body constantly whispered into our ears.
This might be true of some cases. The MVT idea is so simple:
"the modern E-1 brain instantiates a virtual sensor(gan) the template
of which is the primal/median eye" .... it can't be referenced. The
experiments that
the MVT predicates are drawn from can be referenced (in depth) however.
Tracking
> down those connections always impresses me with the
> amazing depth of knowledge in this meta-society I get to
> be part of. I would think citing such things would
> signal to reviewers you were a) familiar with the literature
> b) cognizant of how science works and c) not prone to
> claim credit for other's idea. I speak from logic, though,
> not experience.
Yes, but such things (literature &c.) are 'padding' and not strictly
concerning the breakthrougfh idea.
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Date: 05 May 2000 10:58:03 +0200
> From: Anders Sandberg <asa@nada.kth.se>
> Subject: Re: Understanding Academia
>
> CurtAdams@aol.com writes:
>
> > In a message dated 5/4/00 11:40:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > steve@multisell.com writes:
>
> I agree with Curt. Even a totally radical new idea is linked to other
> subjects, and a paper about it needs to both have links to explain the
> subject it deals with, other theories to be shown less likely and
> often a lot of standard references for basic data. In fact, the more
> radical the theory, the more important it is to get the citation
> apparatus working right since the paper and its conclusions will be
> scrutinised severely.
Anders,
I make the same point as above. What reference can I give for the above MVT
formulation?
Sure, I can talk about other theories and give references for those ....
Descartes gives very few or no references in his breakthrough works such as
the Dioptrics,
I think references are a bit of a modern fetish, and serve to alienate a
non-specialist readership.
> > I would think citing such things would
> > signal to reviewers you were a) familiar with the literature
> > b) cognizant of how science works and c) not prone to
> > claim credit for other's idea. I speak from logic, though,
> > not experience.
Yes, when writing a dissertation or some formal academic excercise, I find
that the references
and footnotes are often longer than the actual text. It depends on the
subject and context &c.
>
> Yes, this is true in practice too. In fact, one of the surest signs of
> a crackpot theory is the complete absence of any references other than
> a few written by the author.
The presence of reams of references does not mean the theory is not crackpot
either ....
It is horses for courses surely, when writing for a scientific audience I
include them, but
I often write as a journalist (and might work any references into the text
body) and when I
want normal people to read something I avoid footnotes, many references and
formulae.
This "reference" debate is a little bit off the original points raised in
Robin Hanson's original
posting .... my main objection to academic 'padding' which includes
references is that they stifle
creativity, and if you are familiar with previous work then this is already
factored in to your writing, so the
reference might be superfluous, whereas the stuff you AREN'T aware of isn't
going to be referenced!
steve@multisell.com
www.att.ac Academic Reform
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:26 MST