4 ms·

What? Leibniz/Newton introduced the concept of calculus; shouldn't we credit them with this (amazing) concept just because it wasn't formalized very well until

What? Leibniz/Newton introduced the concept of calculus; shouldn't we credit them with this (amazing) concept just because it wasn't formalized very well until Weierstrass came along?

analog31 9y ago
In my view, Leibniz / Newton did enough heavy lifting to deserve credit for developing the field. This is way different than just blurting out a "concept" without even knowing if it's workable. I'm in agreement that ideas are a dime a dozen. Sure, it's necessary to cite the first known mention of an idea, and there are situations where the first mention of an idea is important such as in the patent system. "Planting" happens in my world all the time. Unfortunately, managers give a lot more importance to "ideas" than they are really worth, because they over-value their own interventions in general. Somebody will blurt out an idea in a meeting, wait until someone else has developed it, and then rush in to take credit. If a manager does this, it's a blow to morale. I have my own rule of thumb, which is "show your work" from math class. Just writing down the answer doesn't get you full credit. A couple of historical examples: The ancient Greeks are credited with the atomic theory, but they had no concept of even turning it into a serious hypothesis. Lots of ideas are anticipated in science fiction, but do those authors really deserve credit?
- sgt101 9y ago
  I agree, both Newton and Leibniz worked out chunks of method and demonstrated their utility. Interestingly Newton's alchemical approach to publication is rather similar to an arXivists... bits and snippits! In the end we reference the formal publication (if we are developing fundamental changes to calculus which would be f*ing impressive... or writing about science!)
- lou1306 9y ago
  > Somebody will blurt out an idea in a meeting, wait until someone else has developed it, and then rush in to take credit. I see what you mean, but this is mostly office politics, which is not very related to the academic citation process. If an author makes a conjecture that stimulates further work (even if it's just on the ArXiv), he deserves to be cited. > Lots of ideas are anticipated in science fiction, but do those authors really deserve credit? Well, I guess it depends on how much the idea is fleshed out. Lucian was probably the first author to conceive space travel, but it was just "people land on the moon" (still pretty far out for his times, though). Meanwhile, Asimov's three laws of robotics depict a reasonable control scheme for e.g. an autonomous vehicle, so if they are somehow implemented their author should be credited.
  - analog31 9y ago
    Agreed, definitely cite the author. In my view, using citations as a metric, and abusing that metric, is just an academic version of office politics, writ large.

What? Leibniz/Newton introduced the concept of calculus; shouldn't we credit them with this (amazing) concept just because it wasn't formalized very well until Weierstrass came along?

analog31 9y ago

In my view, Leibniz / Newton did enough heavy lifting to deserve credit for developing the field. This is way different than just blurting out a "concept" without even knowing if it's workable. I'm in agreement that ideas are a dime a dozen. Sure, it's necessary to cite the first known mention of an idea, and there are situations where the first mention of an idea is important such as in the patent system. "Planting" happens in my world all the time. Unfortunately, managers give a lot more importance to "ideas" than they are really worth, because they over-value their own interventions in general. Somebody will blurt out an idea in a meeting, wait until someone else has developed it, and then rush in to take credit. If a manager does this, it's a blow to morale. I have my own rule of thumb, which is "show your work" from math class. Just writing down the answer doesn't get you full credit. A couple of historical examples: The ancient Greeks are credited with the atomic theory, but they had no concept of even turning it into a serious hypothesis. Lots of ideas are anticipated in science fiction, but do those authors really deserve credit?

sgt101 9y ago
I agree, both Newton and Leibniz worked out chunks of method and demonstrated their utility. Interestingly Newton's alchemical approach to publication is rather similar to an arXivists... bits and snippits! In the end we reference the formal publication (if we are developing fundamental changes to calculus which would be f*ing impressive... or writing about science!)
lou1306 9y ago
> Somebody will blurt out an idea in a meeting, wait until someone else has developed it, and then rush in to take credit. I see what you mean, but this is mostly office politics, which is not very related to the academic citation process. If an author makes a conjecture that stimulates further work (even if it's just on the ArXiv), he deserves to be cited. > Lots of ideas are anticipated in science fiction, but do those authors really deserve credit? Well, I guess it depends on how much the idea is fleshed out. Lucian was probably the first author to conceive space travel, but it was just "people land on the moon" (still pretty far out for his times, though). Meanwhile, Asimov's three laws of robotics depict a reasonable control scheme for e.g. an autonomous vehicle, so if they are somehow implemented their author should be credited.
- analog31 9y ago
  Agreed, definitely cite the author. In my view, using citations as a metric, and abusing that metric, is just an academic version of office politics, writ large.