🚀 go-pugleaf

Leon Taylor (taylor@rs6.tcs.tulane.edu) wrote:

> I don't understand why a citation would render Reisner's book
> science.

In scientific publications, when a number is taken from someone else's
work a citation is used to give credit to the original researcher, to allow
critical (or uninformed) readers to look up its basis, and to give colleagues
the source so they can incorporate it into their own papers/presentations.
Instead of arguing forever as to what science "is" (scientists, philosophers,
anthopologists, etc *still* haven't defined it and if Witgenstein is right
they never will), it is more useful to frame things in terms of how 
scientists *behave*.  In this light citations are easily recognized as a 
defining characteristc of scientific activity and the strive for clarity and 
objectivity. That is so is reflected by the staggering quantitiy of 
resources used to keep track of citations (e.g. see the Science Citation 
Index).
 
Since I want to *use* valid numbers (about water projects) for economic
and hydrologic analysis, I want to look up the sources to see the techniques
used to derive the figures.  Also, these other sources might include
information that Reisner couldn't or wouldn't include, but which might be
of interest to me.  Summary tables, graphs, figures, etc would be a useful
addition to the book, too (while I'm at it). 
 
 
> I would prefer that a writer -- journalist or scientist -- simply
> tell me how the estimate was derived and relegate those disruptive
> citations to the bibliography.  Give me something that I can read;
> tell me what you think and why. : I will decide what to believe.
 
 
In general I agree, but an explanation of how the numbers are derived for
water projects goes beyond what any layperson can understand without
having taken a course in hydrology and perhaps a few others.  Understanding
aside, the details in these water project stories are so grueling that
to compile them all in one book would turn it into a multi-volume set!  For
the purposes of an overview, I think citations *in the body of the text*
are (appropriate and) enough.  The bottom line for me is that it is a shame
that a book presenting itself as "the way it was" brushes away its own
citation trail as if it had something to hide.

--
Greg Pasternack              | Because each and every reality needs
gpast@uclink.berkeley.edu    | a regular tune up.