2008/10/22 S. N.C. Dalton <[log in to unmask]>:
> Oh I think space syntax is well read by Physicists
>
> Intelligibility and first passage times in complex urban networks
> http://tinyurl.com/68wa8d

This has not often been the case. I came across many papers that
ignore the subject or make superfluous citations. If this is starting
to change, we have to thank, for instance, Porta et al and,
suprisingly, Rui Carvalho, who published something relevant on physics
journals mentioning space syntax.

Because the way modern tools of referencing work, people find who
cited who. This is the way they found my papers, for instance. I cite
non-space-syntax research, then they find me. If you do not cite other
research rather than space syntax, they will not find you. Simple as
that. I go further to say that If you write in space-syntax hermetic
language, they will not read you anyway.

> All the more amusing when you think it how unlikely it would be for an
> article on space syntax its self to make it into the proceedings of the
> royal society.

I actually tried once, without success. Apparently one only stand a
change if find a physicist to sign the paper as co-author.

2008/10/23 Alasdair Turner <[log in to unmask]>:
>  That is to say, fields of study probably do need space to develop their own domain
> specific understanding of networks in isolation from others (...) we also need to spend time thinking
> about our own problems and our own solutions to those problems, and that
> will suffer if we spend too much time looking out for what every single
> other subject does.

Having a multidisciplinar background, I boldly disagree. Laziness is
not the answer for doing good research. I argue that it is preferable
to read three good books in three different disciplines than ten that
talk about exactly the same thing. The best ideas came from people
that look to a problem through a completely different point of view.

> On 22 Oct 2008, at 23:28, Alan Penn wrote:
> I think that the 'hermetic' suggestion is not entirely accurate. Space
> syntax methods and measures seem to me to have been picked up and used by a
> remarkably heterogeneous series of fields of research (...)

Yes - 'picked up and used'. There is a considerable spread of these
ideas (having distributed a software worldwide, I actually have data
to prove that). However, in most cases, they adopt space syntax as
black box, a 'read-to-use-tool' for those that do not have many
methodological tools available. As a result, there are a considerable
number of 'me-too' case studies that do not really add methodological
or theoretical contributions to those ideas.

To develop things in a faster pace, multiple contributing cores are
needed, rather than one, not mentioning multiple competing methods
rather a 'standard / elected one'. The
concentrating-hermetic-knowledge policy has side-effects...

(...) Because
> the starting points are different one does not naturally think of conducting
> a literature review of the other fields until they become quite mature. Why
> would a biologist working on complex mitogenic signaling think of reviewing
> papers in architecture and urbanism? and vice versa?

I actually reviewed a lot o biology papers recently - all very useful.
If I am not wrong, the first paper mentioning the term 'space syntax'
was related with biology. Why would they not learn something useful
from us too? Christopher Alexander's pattern language is heavily
influential in computer science.

2008/10/24 Professor Bill Hillier <[log in to unmask]>:
> (...) I don' think I need go on. The growth of these fields, and network analysis,
> in the past two or three decades, driven largely by the development of
> computers, has been phenomenal. Part of our response to these developments
> was of course to bring a physicist into our research group !

It has not worked out as one would expect, but perhaps it is time to
try again...

Best Regards,
Lucas Figueiredo