Question

15 Responses to Question

1. Neil Saunders says:

   12 June 2008 at 06:49

   that it no longer needs to be cited
   I guess if you state something as fact, it always has to be cited. The “Wikipedia page”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Châtelier's_principle points to the classic:
   P.W. Atkins, The Elements of Physical Chemistry, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 114.
2. Richard P. Grant says:

   12 June 2008 at 06:55

   Thanks Neil. I was hoping for something a bit… older 🙂 (And I have no means of verifying that information).
3. Neil Saunders says:

   12 June 2008 at 06:58

   I know what you mean – it’s fun digging for the original reference. There’s a challenge for someone.
4. Bob O'Hara says:

   12 June 2008 at 07:03

   I can’t answer that question, but the phenomenon was noticed by some sociologists in the 70s (Latour & Woolgar), who were suggesting that professional science could be regarded as an exercise in making statements more or less certain, and the height of success was to have one of you statements become so well known that a citation wasn’t needed.
5. Neil Saunders says:

   12 June 2008 at 07:03

   Well, here’s his obituary)2%3A6%3C250%3AHLLC1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8 with some titled works.
6. Neil Saunders says:

   12 June 2008 at 07:08

   I believe it may be:
   H.L. Le Chatelier, Loi de stabilité de l’équilibre chimique, Annales des Mines 13 (1888) 157.
7. Brian Derby says:

   12 June 2008 at 08:11

   Good luck with that. I managed to get references to Pliny and Agricola in my thesis.
8. Richard P. Grant says:

   12 June 2008 at 08:46

   But that’s a thesis. No one reads those.
9. Stephen Curry says:

   12 June 2008 at 10:02

   So are you planning to cite Le Chatelier in a paper? I’m intrigued. The only time I came across his principle was to strip it out of lectures on thermodynamics to 1st year biochemists.
   As you know, your original question: When does a piece of knowledge become so widespread, so known (self-evident?) that it no longer needs to be cited? echoes an interesting discussion going on over at Lablit and, I guess, is related to the issue of scientific authority that cropped up in discussions about Philip Ball’s The Sun and Moon Corrupted. I think it’s healthy to adhere to the discipline of citing references – a practice that distinguishes good scientific writing from much journalistic output.
   But I see I haven’t done anything to address your question…
10. Heather Etchevers says:

    12 June 2008 at 11:03

    I love it when an author takes the time to find an original reference. It’s even better when you can dig it up and read it.
    We still get a fairly nice smattering of original references from the 19th century in developmental biology.
    So, though I can’t help you, just wanted to offer support that the digging might be worth it.
11. Richard P. Grant says:

    12 June 2008 at 11:06

    It’s actually for a book chapter, so obscure references are potentially de rigeur.
    I could say “mass action” but that doesn’t have quite the same class (and is, in fact, subtly different).
12. Stephen Curry says:

    12 June 2008 at 11:18

    Classy, yes. I still prefer ‘mass action’, but then I have catholic tastes…
13. Brian Derby says:

    12 June 2008 at 12:10

    I think you should cop out and stick in a reference to Atkins or some other readily accessible chemistry text. After all, I expect you are assuming prior knowledge and wht is needed is a pointer as to how to acquire said knowledge if necessary. If you want to impress your readers (or your colleagues, future employers etc.) with your erudition you extract a bit of the historical (out of copyright) text as a frontpiece to a chapter or as an aside. You must focus on who you are trying to impress.
14. David Whitlock says:

    12 June 2008 at 15:37

    To call it Le Chatelier’s Principle is to cite it.
    Scientific articles are meant for other scientists. Do you cite Pasteur when suggesting a germ might cause a disease? No because people who do not know and subscribe to the germ theory are not within your target audience.
    Is your intent to impress with references no one can possibly find, or to share and educate?
15. Richard P. Grant says:

    12 June 2008 at 20:18

    I was, David, honestly wondering if there was a citation.
    The ‘who are you trying to impress’ question of Brian’s wasn’t something I considered.

Comments are closed.