4 ms·

I recall watching a video of Schmidhuber presenting. He comes onstage, introduces himself, and then makes a joke. ("You again!") It's a funny joke. And it's

I recall watching a video of Schmidhuber presenting. He comes onstage, introduces himself, and then makes a joke. ("You again!") It's a funny joke. And it's self-deprecating. I remember thinking to myself, "This is a formidable Austrian." That and the Gödelmachine: I'm a fan. There's a simple and obvious way to solve this: cite the papers. It's traditional, it's noble, it's not hard, and it makes you look good. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago something I learned reading an old interview by Bill Moyers of Isaac Asimov, that in ~1900 three different people, Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns, and Erich Tschermak von Seysenegg, discovered the laws of genetics, checked the literature, and found the work of Mendel from half a century earlier. Each of them credited Mendel.

angrais 4y ago
You do not have to cite every paper under a specific topic nor do you have to cite the first paper that introduces a paper. Why? Maybe those papers are not well written. Maybe a recent paper covers the idea better, etc. So no, he does not have to be cited just because.
- carapace 4y ago
  > You do not have to cite every paper under a specific topic Strawman. > nor do you have to cite the first paper that introduces a paper. Did you mean "first paper that introduces a concept."? In any event, also a strawman. > Maybe those papers are not well written. Hypothetical. (Have you read the papers? I've read some and I would say they are well-written.) > Maybe a recent paper covers the idea better, etc. Wonderful! Should still cite prior work. > So no, he does not have to be cited just because. Strawman. If you're going to argue at least do it well. The options are: cite him, slight him, or prove him wrong. I think he's made it clear that he won't accepts slights without a fight, so one can either show him where he's wrong, cite him as he plainly makes clear one should, or admit that he's being shut out for unscientific reasons.
  - angrais 4y ago
    I'm not sure you know what Strawman means. Are you a researcher? Have you published research papers? >> The options are: cite him, slight him, or prove him wrong. Again, are you a researcher? These are not the options. Also what even is "slight him" or "prove him wrong"? My comments above are about citation practices not this one researcher in particular. >> I think he's made it clear that he won't accepts slights without a fight, so one can either show him where he's wrong, cite him as he plainly makes clear one should, or admit that he's being shut out for unscientific reasons. There is nothing to fight about nor nothing to "prove". There are many reasons to cite an author and being the first to publish a paper many years ago about a topic does not automatically deem citation. That's not how science works. It's how (unfortunately) the academic churn of paper writing works at times. FYI: it's not "unscientific" to not cite a paper. It's almost impossible to cite all relevant works, so the author of a paper selects the most relevant. Obviously this is biased and can become political (e.g., Schmidhuber), but flamming online about not being cited doesn't mean you must cite an author.
    - carapace 4y ago
      > A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Good day sir.
      - angrais 4y ago
        That's my point. I didn't replace the argument with any other. My original comment concerned citation practices whereas you're arguing about something else. So it's not a straw man, but rather that we're having different discussions.

angrais 4y ago

You do not have to cite every paper under a specific topic nor do you have to cite the first paper that introduces a paper. Why? Maybe those papers are not well written. Maybe a recent paper covers the idea better, etc. So no, he does not have to be cited just because.

carapace 4y ago
> You do not have to cite every paper under a specific topic Strawman. > nor do you have to cite the first paper that introduces a paper. Did you mean "first paper that introduces a concept."? In any event, also a strawman. > Maybe those papers are not well written. Hypothetical. (Have you read the papers? I've read some and I would say they are well-written.) > Maybe a recent paper covers the idea better, etc. Wonderful! Should still cite prior work. > So no, he does not have to be cited just because. Strawman. If you're going to argue at least do it well. The options are: cite him, slight him, or prove him wrong. I think he's made it clear that he won't accepts slights without a fight, so one can either show him where he's wrong, cite him as he plainly makes clear one should, or admit that he's being shut out for unscientific reasons.
- angrais 4y ago
  I'm not sure you know what Strawman means. Are you a researcher? Have you published research papers? >> The options are: cite him, slight him, or prove him wrong. Again, are you a researcher? These are not the options. Also what even is "slight him" or "prove him wrong"? My comments above are about citation practices not this one researcher in particular. >> I think he's made it clear that he won't accepts slights without a fight, so one can either show him where he's wrong, cite him as he plainly makes clear one should, or admit that he's being shut out for unscientific reasons. There is nothing to fight about nor nothing to "prove". There are many reasons to cite an author and being the first to publish a paper many years ago about a topic does not automatically deem citation. That's not how science works. It's how (unfortunately) the academic churn of paper writing works at times. FYI: it's not "unscientific" to not cite a paper. It's almost impossible to cite all relevant works, so the author of a paper selects the most relevant. Obviously this is biased and can become political (e.g., Schmidhuber), but flamming online about not being cited doesn't mean you must cite an author.
  - carapace 4y ago
    > A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Good day sir.
    - angrais 4y ago
      That's my point. I didn't replace the argument with any other. My original comment concerned citation practices whereas you're arguing about something else. So it's not a straw man, but rather that we're having different discussions.