NancyLebovitz comments on Open Thread, October 1-15, 2012 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (477)
The reason I wanted something deterministic is that I wasn't convinced that scientists would generally trust something that looked random with the stakes being somewhat high. When I think about the amount of scientific fraud, I'm not even sure that they should trust each other.
My alphabetical scheme isn't ideally random-- it gives an advantage to authors whose names begin with unusual letters.
Thanks for the information that date of publication can be somewhat foggy.