The Unbearable Lightness of Contemporary Citation Style, Part II

By -
For millennia, people (on the human condition, see Plato 380 BCE, Aristotle 340 BCE, Aquinas 1200, Hobbes 1660, Marx and Engels 1856, Freud 1911, Arendt 1943, and Mises 1949) have written papers (see Gutenberg 1450) examining various aspects of social existence (on the topic of existence, note especially Plato 380 BCE, Aristotle 340 BCE, Aquinas 1200, Descartes 1645, Kierkegaard 1869, Sartre 1943, Camus 1954). In past centuries (for the concept of 'history,' consult Augustine 415, Vico 1700, Hegel 1820, and Collingwood 1943) scholars were often content (recent studies on happiness include Tom 2001, Dick 2007, and Harry 2010) to simply say what they meant (the concept of meaning has been analyzed by Plato 380 BCE, Aristotle 340 BCE, Peirce 1889, Frege 1894, Russell 1925, Ramsey 1936, Kripke 1977, Eco 1984, Sebeok 1987, and Davidson 2001) without citing a multitude of sources who had said something vaguely similar on some remotely connected subject in the past. Today (on modernity, see Strauss 1959, Voegelin 1973, and MacIntyre 1984), however, scholars recognize the need (theories of necessity include those of Leibniz 1700 and Ayer 1936) to fluff up their papers with dozens (the relevant works on number theory to the concept of 'dozens' are especially those of Gauss 1828, Riemann 1856, and Poincare 1898) of citations to works they have never even read.

This represents a huge step forward in scholarship (see the style of many contemporary journals for proof).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more