Hi Terry,
Apologies for the wait. Your post is interesting, but I only need to read the beginning, because it looks like you're conflating status with credibility thereby setting the stage for a straw man. But you knew that. (=
Susan
On Nov 27, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Terence Love wrote:
> Um, exactly how does it work this using references for status and
> credibility?
>
> So, if a person writes a paper that has faulty and fallacious reasoning, and
> reports flawed findings, it's a good paper provided the person includes lots
> of references to show they are a member of a community with a long history,
> or are saying thanks to someone, or the references are cited only to improve
> credibility or are well known etc. On that basis it should be accepted by
> any relevant journal.
>
> Or, if a person writes a correctly reasoned paper that correctly reports
> important and useful findings, it's a bad paper if they didn't include
> lots of references to show they are a member of a community with a long
> history, or are saying thanks to someone, or the references are cited only
> to improve credibility or are well known etc. On that basis it should be
> rejected by any relevant journal?
>
> Or perhaps there is some formally-defined middle ground with a sort of score
> chart? Something like (say) 3 apparently relevant citations to researcher
> in a well-established research community gets one off the hook for one
> bit of incorrect reasoning, one fallacious conclusion, or perhaps a couple
> of false findings?
>
> How does it go with the stuff at the other end? I mean, for a researcher
> reporting a research finding that when people use it results in deaths or
> people lose lots of money. Perhaps it can be fully offset by a half a dozen
> random citations of publications to researchers with the higher levels of
> status like Ken or Don?
>
> Or perhaps, 'Don't worry about the faulty reactor design. If it has a
> meltdown everything will be fine - the researchers had a couple references
> to Einstein, he's got a big enough name hasn't he?'
>
> One perspective on references is personal isn't the same as important.
>
> What happens to a field if accurate reasoning and avoidance of fallacies
> reasoning is replaced by using references as personal influence?
>
> Um, how does that work?
>
> Terry
>
>
>
> Ranulph Glanville:<Snip>Don't let's forget that references are also a way of
> saying "I join and intend to remain a member of a community with a long
> history" "Thank you to..."
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|