4 ms·

I understand the criticism but do you really think a like is the same thing as a citation? A like requires a single mouse click. A citation requires a publishe

I understand the criticism but do you really think a like is the same thing as a citation? A like requires a single mouse click. A citation requires a published article.

dschuetz 8y ago
No, of course those are completely different things. The number still doesn't say whether his work is right or wrong. You can cite the Bible up and down and it still doesn't make it anywhere near plausible. As far as I know, Juan Maldacena is a supporter of String Theory, and despite of his minor achievements in science might being correct in context of his field, 17.000+ citations doesn't say anything about the quality of his original work on String Theory. So why even mention it? Just so to say that he's an authority in particle physics? If I had the same scientific authority as he does for a completely bonkers theory, I'd instantly say that the guy is nuts.
- sgt101 8y ago
  I disagree - citations count is not a linear measure of quality of work, or importance, and there are significant anomalies and unfairness's in the way things get cited. For example, write an early text book and you may get a tranche of citations without doing a significant amount of important original research. Grad students who co-author with famous authors also get a significant boost due to the reputation and connectivity of their mentor. But, I think that most senior academics will have less than 15k citations in total. 17k citations for a single paper is remarkable; it's an indication of work that was important, original and definitive. I only referee in compsci, but in compsci citing papers that are nothing to do with the work in hand, and citing them to generate authority for your arguments does not wash and leads to rejections. Citations point to the basis of your work; establishing that you are building on firm foundations and differentiating your contribution from previous contributions to enable the reader to learn. Being cited in this way is being a teacher to the community.
  - dschuetz 8y ago
    You actually support my argument in the way that he's established himself as the teaching authority to the community. But imagine him being wrong and all of the people's work who cited his is wrong. All that knowledge and insights - wrong. Isn't it also an ideal of a scientist to remain critical of everything and just make assumptions that "if that is true then..." or "if this is wrong, then..."? So many people based their work on his ONE paper. Jeez, imagine how much it would cost to find out that this paper is worth nothing.
    - dschuetz 8y ago
      Here's a follow-up on why Mandacena could be wrong, and his work is not the only one: "The problem here is that of what is an “interesting region of theory space”. At this point the failures of string theory unification strongly indicate that it’s not such an interesting region. It seems likely that we’d be better off if most theorists focusing on phenomenology of this failed program were to pick something else to work on." And as far as I could follow his work and attempts to explain symmetry with economics analogies, I think my concerns are valid. https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375
      - raattgift 8y ago
        Citations are not a "like"-like function; they are an admission by an author of a work that another work shaped its development. One must also cite a work if one is writing a paper which disagrees with that work's conclusions, criticizes its methods, or points out a fault in its theoretical content. This has a particular benefit for readers. Woit himself carefully cites works he strongly objects to in his book[1] that shares its name with the blog you linked to. - -- [1] Woit P. Not even wrong: The failure of string theory and the search for unity in physical law. Basic Books (AZ); 2006 Sep 4., pp 268-274. (cf. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/NEWerrata.html http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/NEWerrata.html )
    - sgt101 8y ago
      Every scientist I know bursts with enthusiasm and excitement when there is even a hint that a well known and important result is wrong. It would literally be a bonanza for them, 99.9% of the time the excitement is misplaced, but scientists live for the 0.1% I would say that finding out that this paper is worth nothing becomes more expensive and more valuable with every citation - every time people cite work they are looking at it.

I understand the criticism but do you really think a like is the same thing as a citation? A like requires a single mouse click. A citation requires a published article.

dschuetz 8y ago

No, of course those are completely different things. The number still doesn't say whether his work is right or wrong. You can cite the Bible up and down and it still doesn't make it anywhere near plausible. As far as I know, Juan Maldacena is a supporter of String Theory, and despite of his minor achievements in science might being correct in context of his field, 17.000+ citations doesn't say anything about the quality of his original work on String Theory. So why even mention it? Just so to say that he's an authority in particle physics? If I had the same scientific authority as he does for a completely bonkers theory, I'd instantly say that the guy is nuts.

sgt101 8y ago
I disagree - citations count is not a linear measure of quality of work, or importance, and there are significant anomalies and unfairness's in the way things get cited. For example, write an early text book and you may get a tranche of citations without doing a significant amount of important original research. Grad students who co-author with famous authors also get a significant boost due to the reputation and connectivity of their mentor. But, I think that most senior academics will have less than 15k citations in total. 17k citations for a single paper is remarkable; it's an indication of work that was important, original and definitive. I only referee in compsci, but in compsci citing papers that are nothing to do with the work in hand, and citing them to generate authority for your arguments does not wash and leads to rejections. Citations point to the basis of your work; establishing that you are building on firm foundations and differentiating your contribution from previous contributions to enable the reader to learn. Being cited in this way is being a teacher to the community.
- dschuetz 8y ago
  You actually support my argument in the way that he's established himself as the teaching authority to the community. But imagine him being wrong and all of the people's work who cited his is wrong. All that knowledge and insights - wrong. Isn't it also an ideal of a scientist to remain critical of everything and just make assumptions that "if that is true then..." or "if this is wrong, then..."? So many people based their work on his ONE paper. Jeez, imagine how much it would cost to find out that this paper is worth nothing.
  - dschuetz 8y ago
    Here's a follow-up on why Mandacena could be wrong, and his work is not the only one: "The problem here is that of what is an “interesting region of theory space”. At this point the failures of string theory unification strongly indicate that it’s not such an interesting region. It seems likely that we’d be better off if most theorists focusing on phenomenology of this failed program were to pick something else to work on." And as far as I could follow his work and attempts to explain symmetry with economics analogies, I think my concerns are valid. https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375
    - raattgift 8y ago
      Citations are not a "like"-like function; they are an admission by an author of a work that another work shaped its development. One must also cite a work if one is writing a paper which disagrees with that work's conclusions, criticizes its methods, or points out a fault in its theoretical content. This has a particular benefit for readers. Woit himself carefully cites works he strongly objects to in his book[1] that shares its name with the blog you linked to. - -- [1] Woit P. Not even wrong: The failure of string theory and the search for unity in physical law. Basic Books (AZ); 2006 Sep 4., pp 268-274. (cf. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/NEWerrata.html http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/NEWerrata.html )
  - sgt101 8y ago
    Every scientist I know bursts with enthusiasm and excitement when there is even a hint that a well known and important result is wrong. It would literally be a bonanza for them, 99.9% of the time the excitement is misplaced, but scientists live for the 0.1% I would say that finding out that this paper is worth nothing becomes more expensive and more valuable with every citation - every time people cite work they are looking at it.