3 ms·

“My understanding is that citations are used to avoid having to argue for the truth value of a proposition, not to give credit, nor to establish some kind of ch

“My understanding is that citations are used to avoid having to argue for the truth value of a proposition, not to give credit, nor to establish some kind of chain of trust.” People do this in science, politics, and church. It’s a call to act only (or mostly) on that person’s testimony. An act of faith. It’s both a red flag to watch for and a necessary aid for people. A red flag because it’s often a sign of fallacy. I default on looking that person up along with folks that might disagree with them. Every success adds credibility. Failures mean I’ll default in a different direction if I hear their name come up. Might even dig into what other claims they have which are spreading. Those sources who keep getting the job done in specific areas can graduate from red flag to reliable enough to default on. Only in that area for claims not to far from what they’ve been good at. If outside or a big claim, still double check. Also, be able to provide verifiable evidence of why you trust the source.

Karellen 3y ago
Are you suggesting it's a red flag for science/mathematics to build upon previous results, to "stand on the shoulders of giants" (as it were)? What are you proposing, that researchers should reproduce all of the results leading up to the current state of the art in their field before embarking on their own original experiments? Edit: So, if anyone wants to build on Fermat's last theorem, it's not enough that they cite Wiles' paper proving it, but they should have to re-derive the proof themselves?
- nickpsecurity 3y ago
  I answered your first question in my original comment. People can build reputations with good science. I’ll answer the other one now. I think humans operate on faith in others’ testimonies way more than actual science. As a follower of Jesus Christ, this doesn’t bother me since I believe we learn the truth in multiple ways. However, science is rooted in empiricism which says any belief must be proven, independently reviewed by skeptics, and we keep using it while it seems correct. Dissent is always allowed in real science since our models (beliefs) might be useful but incorrect on some level. Whatever survives the most review with the most utility is what we should keep using. What happens is often different. People believe something just because it was reported somewhere or had a name on it. That’s pure faith (or argument from authority). Many works aren’t just unreplicated: they can’t be replicated. Many institutions have political biases affecting their work. Many don’t allow dissent on some topics. People good at one thing often fail at another. I also see big jumps in extrapolating a small success to future, larger successes. While common (even on HN), none of that is the scientific method in action. It’s more like a mix of science, unproven dogma, speculation, political maneuvering, and a popularity contest. The ratios of these vary by field and institution. Don’t call anything science or “proof” unless it fully follows the scientific method. And builds on premises that did, too.

Karellen 3y ago

Are you suggesting it's a red flag for science/mathematics to build upon previous results, to "stand on the shoulders of giants" (as it were)? What are you proposing, that researchers should reproduce all of the results leading up to the current state of the art in their field before embarking on their own original experiments? Edit: So, if anyone wants to build on Fermat's last theorem, it's not enough that they cite Wiles' paper proving it, but they should have to re-derive the proof themselves?

nickpsecurity 3y ago
I answered your first question in my original comment. People can build reputations with good science. I’ll answer the other one now. I think humans operate on faith in others’ testimonies way more than actual science. As a follower of Jesus Christ, this doesn’t bother me since I believe we learn the truth in multiple ways. However, science is rooted in empiricism which says any belief must be proven, independently reviewed by skeptics, and we keep using it while it seems correct. Dissent is always allowed in real science since our models (beliefs) might be useful but incorrect on some level. Whatever survives the most review with the most utility is what we should keep using. What happens is often different. People believe something just because it was reported somewhere or had a name on it. That’s pure faith (or argument from authority). Many works aren’t just unreplicated: they can’t be replicated. Many institutions have political biases affecting their work. Many don’t allow dissent on some topics. People good at one thing often fail at another. I also see big jumps in extrapolating a small success to future, larger successes. While common (even on HN), none of that is the scientific method in action. It’s more like a mix of science, unproven dogma, speculation, political maneuvering, and a popularity contest. The ratios of these vary by field and institution. Don’t call anything science or “proof” unless it fully follows the scientific method. And builds on premises that did, too.