Re:No Paper Is That Good
by nitwit005 on Friday July 13, 2018 @02:52PM
(#17525673)
Following the link through to the original proposal, this seems like a misinterpretation of the suggestion. The problem this was supposed to "fix" was people using the existence of their being "vast literature" to shut down arguments.
From that perspective, the suggestion seems fine. You should be able to dig out two examples that show your field isn't nonsense. I don't think it was meant to be a high bar:
> There are actual examples of vast literatures that contain zero knowledge: Astrology, for instance. People have written so much about astrology that I bet you could spend decades reading what they've written and not even come close to the end. But at the end of the day, the only thing you'd know more about is the mindset of people who write about astrology. Because astrology is total and utter bunk.
From that perspective, the suggestion seems fine. You should be able to dig out two examples that show your field isn't nonsense. I don't think it was meant to be a high bar:
> There are actual examples of vast literatures that contain zero knowledge: Astrology, for instance. People have written so much about astrology that I bet you could spend decades reading what they've written and not even come close to the end. But at the end of the day, the only thing you'd know more about is the mindset of people who write about astrology. Because astrology is total and utter bunk.