= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
BenLowell comments on Rational Romantic Relationships, Part 1: Relationship Styles and Attraction Basics - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (1529)
Luke also has the advantage of that this is his job.
It is not uncommon for research articles to have 50+ references, and review articles often have over 300 references.
Edit: Luke's articles do have way more than the usual number of references. This article has approximately 120 sentences, with 37 notes and about 150 references, which doesn't make sense the way that I am familiar with. I am used to references referring to cited sources, and am not sure how Luke is using it. If it is a list of works consulted that makes sense.
I would presume that most papers will include a number of references to sources that the authors have only briefly skimmed, only read the abstract, or not actually read at all.
I saw an article somewhere (I wish I'd remembere where) about a widely-read paper making a mistake when it cited one of its sources, claiming that the source said something which it didn't. A number of later papers by other authors then repeated this mistaken claim, presumably because their authors didn't bother checking whether the prestigious paper was correct in its cite.
I'm about .90 confident that Luke hasn't actually read all of his cites in entirety.
I think it is not rare for errors in citing to be repeated because no-one bothers to go back to the original source.
Not reading the paper at all can be dangerous. I once read a paper in which the authors had unwittingly rediscovered, but in inferior form, mathematical results that were already proved in one of the papers they cited. Fortunately for the authors, I was refereeing their paper, and had read the paper they cited, so I was able to save them the embarrassment of publication.
Correct. You win some Bayes points.
"source X claims/proves statement Y" - the author should have read source X carefully
"For general background information on subject A, see e.g. source B" - the author tries to make the paper more accessible to people from other fields by providing some context, but they do not need to have read source B in detail. Not reading all of your sources is not necessarily evil
This is quite true, and I didn't mean to imply that it was evil.
Also, and especially in the physical sciences - "Other techniques for achieving similar goals include..." or "A complementary measurement of the same quantity..." In these cases knowing what they're doing/trying to do is sufficient.
Of course, the more relevant it is, the more important it is to actually read it. By the time you get to things that you claim actually support your argument, you had better have read them several times carefully.
Though, this particular post was actually written before I was hired by SIAI at the beginning of September.
I assume you're using software to collect references as you research / write? And then you have the software disgorge your collection of references at the end? What software are you using?
Nope. It's still all a manual process because all the programs I've tried aren't good enough, and don't sufficiently improve my workflow. (You may also notice that my preferred format for references is my own, instead of one of the standards that I have to use when writing for peer-review.)
You don't even use something like OttoBib?
That might help a little, but mostly I cite papers not books. Do you know of one that doesn't suck, for papers?
Endnote doesn't suck at all; it just doesn't do the things you were demanding like deduce citation from pdf.
Negative.
Well, a huge part of it is the section with the bullet poins where literally every sentence needed a citation to back it up.