Agreed with the overall point in this post that there is value in reframing and rediscovery. However,
the tendency of LW bloggers to rediscover ideas of famous philosophers and pretend that they discovered it first
consists of two points and I think the second one also deserves some consideration.
I don’t agree with the framing of pretense—if you don’t know about the earlier idea, you probably sincerely think you discovered it. But if such a “discovery” turns out to be a reframing after all, I think there is also a lot of value to be had in pointing this out: to integrate the idea in the common web of knowledge, to make clear to others that the idea exists in another form that they might already know or that might help to deepen their understanding.
So I would urge readers (or posters themselves) to please do keep pointing these correspondences out; in a spirit of helpfulness, of course, not as a ‘gotcha’.
Agreed. In addition to the point about deepening understanding, see also this comment by Jacob Steinhardt: if the relationship to existing work isn’t pointed out, that makes it harder to know whether it’s worth reading the post or not (for readers who are aware of the previous work).
Agreed with the overall point in this post that there is value in reframing and rediscovery. However,
consists of two points and I think the second one also deserves some consideration.
I don’t agree with the framing of pretense—if you don’t know about the earlier idea, you probably sincerely think you discovered it. But if such a “discovery” turns out to be a reframing after all, I think there is also a lot of value to be had in pointing this out: to integrate the idea in the common web of knowledge, to make clear to others that the idea exists in another form that they might already know or that might help to deepen their understanding.
So I would urge readers (or posters themselves) to please do keep pointing these correspondences out; in a spirit of helpfulness, of course, not as a ‘gotcha’.
Agreed. In addition to the point about deepening understanding, see also this comment by Jacob Steinhardt: if the relationship to existing work isn’t pointed out, that makes it harder to know whether it’s worth reading the post or not (for readers who are aware of the previous work).