Comments on: What I Learned from John Brockman, Book Agent to the Stars

By: alexholcombe

alexholcombe — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:52:26 +0000

Yikes sorry about that link! yes, I meant evidencechart.com . It looks to me that the extended time needed for any back and forth with journal articles allows people to avoid engaging in a functional debate. Authors can just ignore aspects of another scientist’s argument and they may never get pinned down on this by the competing scientist. They might if the competitor ever reviews their paper, but then the debate is mostly behind closed doors again and it’s hard for a reader to see that a debate happened and understand the full reasons for what the author wrote.
OK, I need to write a blog post to develop this better

By: changizi

changizi — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:34:13 +0000

Books are a good place to have larger-scale, synthesizing ideas laid out, something that would be difficult to publish — and fit — in a journal. In my Vis Rev book, even though the central research of each chapter appeared in journal articles, in each chapter I am able to lay out a broader case, and flesh out wider implications, things I couldn’t do in the earlier articles, and topics that, all by themselves, aren’t what one would publish in a journal article.

And by participating in the lively scientific exchange, I didn’t mean to do so within the book. Rather, because the book aims to make substantive new claims directed at the scientific community, it will lead to lively exchange over time. That’s not what happens to science books written as a journalistic overview or as a 20-ways-to-increase-your-brain.

Excellent on your evidence chart! (And your link above shouldn’t have an ‘s’ at the end! …with it one is led into web nightmare territory.)

But, as for having the debates within the journals, or books, themselves, I don’t have a strong opinion yet. To play devil’s advocate, I wonder if playing the debate out over longer periods of time leads to more rational players.

By: alexholcombe

alexholcombe — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 11:48:30 +0000

Seems that you’ve put in your book things that should be in the mainstream scientific literature, but aren’t. You mention the
“lively scientific exchange” and I think that a lively exchange is indeed rarely seen in journal articles. But how did you convey it in the book? Did you debate yourself, or imaginary characters, like Galileo did with Salviati vs. Simplicio?

The absence of much back-and-forth between scientists in journal articles is one reason I’ve been working on evidence-charts (www.evidencecharts.com). We need to find ways to bring real debating into the scientific literature. You can do it now in a book, but unfortunately most scientists will never write a book.

You also say “the book is filled with ideas and evidence that go beyond what is found in the technical journal articles”.
I agree, some kinds of ideas are notably absent from journal articles, but not sure I’m thinking of the same things you are. What sorts of things are you referring to?

By: Sonia W.

Sonia W. — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 02:23:12 +0000

Well, I’m a librarian and I ordered the hardback for my library; I hate having to repair paperbacks (or worse, charge a patron for a book that’s beyond repair).

What I really want is a copy of The Brain from 25,000 Feet but I can’t since it costs over $100 and I know I’m the only person who would read it.

I guess I’ll get it through Interlibrary Loan and try to read it all in a week…

By: David DiSalvo

David DiSalvo — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:00:05 +0000

Once again you put the spotlight on something I hadn’t thought of, but now can’t ignore. For other (less science-y reasons), I wonder how long the hardback can survive. The paperback still has relatively low cost of production going for it, but in the digital world it’s hard to imagine that hardbacks will continue their reign atop the publishing pyramid.