« Contemporary Scientific Realism and the 1811 Gill Slit Prediction | Peter Vickers | Main | Popper Prize 2015 »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David Wallace

I feel that (2) is easier said than done.

If I write

"I have argued elsewhere that "worlds" should be understood in terms of decoherent branches (Wallace 2003,2007) and that probabilities are no more problematic here than in the classical case (Wallace 2012,ch.4) and in any case are understandable in terms of decision theory (Wallace 2011,2012 ch.5); in this paper I will assume these positions without argument"

then I'm not sure what's gained by replacing "I" with "Wallace" in the first line.


I'm not so sure. I see plenty of papers that largely follow your second formulation when the author of the submission *isn't* the author of the cited articles. At the very least, it leaves room for doubt.

Relatedly, there's often a worry that better-known authors will be easily recognised, and this does sometimes happen; but often younger academics are influenced by their more senior colleagues, in terms of writing style and philosophical content. Referees wrongly identify authors of papers as someone more senior with some regularity.

Filippo Contesi

In my writing I've been assuming that one should not just "assume" positions one has argued for in previous published papers, but at least give a snapshot of the arguments in support of those positions and then refer to those previously published papers. If one does this then rule (2) seems to become even less troublesome to adopt. Have I been assuming wrongly?


Not at all; I think that's a very good assumption. If word length becomes an issue, say, that might be something to revisit, but there's no harm in making your paper as easy to follow as possible!

The comments to this entry are closed.