4 ms·

I mean, the shame of the abuse or the justice of law should be the one that handles punishment of crimes. To try and shame people not to cite or use scholarly w

I mean, the shame of the abuse or the justice of law should be the one that handles punishment of crimes. To try and shame people not to cite or use scholarly work from people with controversy sourrounding them is sinister in its very nature. It is falling to mob rule instead of logic and reason. Science should be subject to logic and reason and not be infected with social, political, and culutural. Obviously science does not exist in a vacuum, but still.

vkou 8y ago
> I mean, the shame of the abuse or the justice of law should be the one that handles punishment of crimes. I don't need a jury of twelve peers being convinced beyond a reasonable doubt to tell me how I should engage in voluntary collaboration with another person. If I don't want to cite, or work with assholes, that's my business. Call it mob rule if you want, freedom of speech and assembly means freedom from being compelled to work with someone. Citations are an endorsement of a person's work, and of a person. You may wish for that to not be the case, but that's how they are perceived.
- davrosthedalek 8y ago
  At least in hard sciences, citations are more. The real reason fore citations is to a) show that you know the subject matter and, more importantly b) make use of established facts. The problem is now that some of these facts are unique. While you, for example, could ignore measured data points if there are others around (not a good idea), you can not simply replace a theorem etc. by something else. You can not attribute it to someone else either. And you shouldn't use it without citations either, because the chain of proof has to be preserved. The endorsement of a person's work is a consequence of this. If the findings are more relevant or important, they will be cited more. -> if you are cited more, you do important stuff.
  - vkou 8y ago
    Not all citable, background material is unique, and irreplaceable. Half of the cited opinions in the article that advise against citing do so in a quantifiable manner. "Billy's work isn't that important, other contributors have done work of similar importance, without a cloud of unethical behavior around them, you lose little by failing to refer to it, or by citing someone else instead." Unless Billy is the first, only, and final word of authority on a subject (Which in hard sciences, or mathematics, he may well can be,) you can probably find equivalent results among his peers.
sp332 8y ago
Then think of how much scientific inquiry has been discouraged because people don't want to work under those conditions. It just weirds me out that the article quotes people about terrible behavior from professors, but doesn't put any blame there or with the authorities who could do something about it. It just blames everyone who responds for doing it wrong. When authorities aren't doing their jobs, we're left with vigilantism or nothing.
- davrosthedalek 8y ago
  Or, you know, changing the authorities.
- maceurt 8y ago
  There is a reason most good justice systems leave a percent of guilty people free, because punishing that last percent of people would mean also punishing a large amount of innocent people too. It is a law of dimishing returns, and I doubt that a mob of people is gonna have better restraint or control that a justice/ legal system will have while also having better detection and punishment of crimes against the society or social convention.
- eiaoa 8y ago
  >> To try and shame people not to cite or use scholarly work from people with controversy sourrounding them is sinister in its very nature. It is falling to mob rule instead of logic and reason. > Then think of how much scientific inquiry has been discouraged because people don't want to work under those conditions. That's an entirely different issue. What we're talking about here is work that exists, but is not cited due to it's authorship. If Adolf Hitler himself had correctly proven Goldbach's Conjecture, is the proof itself so inseparable from his other actions that it should be rejected with them?
  - sp332 8y ago
    Yes, that was a response to "Science should be subject to logic and reason" etc. To your hypothetical example, I think Hitler's reputation is pretty low right now and it's not necessary to deny him citations just so he won't get more cachet. Her article was about professors who are "jerks", "whose academic sexism hasn’t risen to the level of actionable correction".

vkou 8y ago

> I mean, the shame of the abuse or the justice of law should be the one that handles punishment of crimes. I don't need a jury of twelve peers being convinced beyond a reasonable doubt to tell me how I should engage in voluntary collaboration with another person. If I don't want to cite, or work with assholes, that's my business. Call it mob rule if you want, freedom of speech and assembly means freedom from being compelled to work with someone. Citations are an endorsement of a person's work, and of a person. You may wish for that to not be the case, but that's how they are perceived.

davrosthedalek 8y ago
At least in hard sciences, citations are more. The real reason fore citations is to a) show that you know the subject matter and, more importantly b) make use of established facts. The problem is now that some of these facts are unique. While you, for example, could ignore measured data points if there are others around (not a good idea), you can not simply replace a theorem etc. by something else. You can not attribute it to someone else either. And you shouldn't use it without citations either, because the chain of proof has to be preserved. The endorsement of a person's work is a consequence of this. If the findings are more relevant or important, they will be cited more. -> if you are cited more, you do important stuff.
- vkou 8y ago
  Not all citable, background material is unique, and irreplaceable. Half of the cited opinions in the article that advise against citing do so in a quantifiable manner. "Billy's work isn't that important, other contributors have done work of similar importance, without a cloud of unethical behavior around them, you lose little by failing to refer to it, or by citing someone else instead." Unless Billy is the first, only, and final word of authority on a subject (Which in hard sciences, or mathematics, he may well can be,) you can probably find equivalent results among his peers.

sp332 8y ago

Then think of how much scientific inquiry has been discouraged because people don't want to work under those conditions. It just weirds me out that the article quotes people about terrible behavior from professors, but doesn't put any blame there or with the authorities who could do something about it. It just blames everyone who responds for doing it wrong. When authorities aren't doing their jobs, we're left with vigilantism or nothing.

davrosthedalek 8y ago
Or, you know, changing the authorities.
maceurt 8y ago
There is a reason most good justice systems leave a percent of guilty people free, because punishing that last percent of people would mean also punishing a large amount of innocent people too. It is a law of dimishing returns, and I doubt that a mob of people is gonna have better restraint or control that a justice/ legal system will have while also having better detection and punishment of crimes against the society or social convention.
eiaoa 8y ago
>> To try and shame people not to cite or use scholarly work from people with controversy sourrounding them is sinister in its very nature. It is falling to mob rule instead of logic and reason. > Then think of how much scientific inquiry has been discouraged because people don't want to work under those conditions. That's an entirely different issue. What we're talking about here is work that exists, but is not cited due to it's authorship. If Adolf Hitler himself had correctly proven Goldbach's Conjecture, is the proof itself so inseparable from his other actions that it should be rejected with them?
- sp332 8y ago
  Yes, that was a response to "Science should be subject to logic and reason" etc. To your hypothetical example, I think Hitler's reputation is pretty low right now and it's not necessary to deny him citations just so he won't get more cachet. Her article was about professors who are "jerks", "whose academic sexism hasn’t risen to the level of actionable correction".