A fascinating criterion, from David Hilbert: "One can measure the importance of a scientific work by the number of earlier publications rendered superfluous by it." Reminds me of @DavidDeutschOxf:pic.twitter.com/klQ75MKq0L
-
Had similar thoughts a while ago when thinking about ‘rich’ citations, i.e. whether a citing work supported or refuted a claim of the cited work. With just this information it would be possible to build the graph right?
Interesting idea. For things like GR it's not clear to me it supports or refutes Newtonian gravity; more like it supersedes & deepens Newtonian gravity. Maybe need different types of citation? Interesting to think of citation tags as crowd-generated, not centrally mandated.
-
-
Did Einstein even cite Newton? I haven't read his 1915 paper but I doubt citation would be necessary. It does contradict Newton's theory though, e,g, by denying that there is a force of gravity. OTOH superseded theories aren't necessarily "superfluous".
-
Einstein wrote in 1919: "No one must think that Newton’s great creation can be overthrown in any real sense by this or by any other theory."https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/einstein-on-his-theory-g25vk2vp2qj …
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
For sure. I wonder if it would be possible to crowdsource a subset of the arXiv to try out some different approaches.
-
I assume you’re familiar with CiTO, the citation typing ontology by
@dshotton and@sparontologies. It’s been used for a number of similar experiments, it would be great to see it adopted and extended as needed. https://sparontologies.github.io/cito/current/cito.html … - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.