In a message dated 5/4/00 11:40:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
steve@multisell.com writes:
> If an idea is genuinely new, then
> there are not going to be a lot of "references" you can cite, and academics
> love references since they have a community bonding function.
I disagree. You will usually find references from people
who have tackled this problem in the past, and from people
who have tried techniques like yours in other fields and
areas. I don't think people ever come up with "genuinely
new" ideas; all ideas are developed in the context of the
tremendous body of knowledge in our heads and the even
vaster body constantly whispered into our ears. Tracking
down those connections always impresses me with the
amazing depth of knowledge in this meta-society I get to
be part of. I would think citing such things would
signal to reviewers you were a) familiar with the literature
b) cognizant of how science works and c) not prone to
claim credit for other's idea. I speak from logic, though,
not experience.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:29 MDT