4
$\begingroup$

I think, I read this quote some where:

For every field "x" there exists a field "computational x"

Has anyone else read this or remembers reading anything close to this?

If I remember correctly, it was by Dr. Jan de Leeuw.

Can anyone please tell if my memory fails me here? (I could not find any link after a lot of googling)

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I am asking this here because of its use in Reproducible Research and if I remember correctly this quote was in a presentation related to reproducible research. Apologies in advance if it wasn't meant to be here. $\endgroup$
    – suncoolsu
    Dec 15, 2010 at 4:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't really see the point made by this quote. Is there a computational philosophy ? computational poetry ? ... It seems that it would be more correct to say : "For every field "x" that has a "computational x" there is a "computational x". :) $\endgroup$ Dec 15, 2010 at 8:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Robin. I agree with you, but it sounds good for a presentation on reproducible-research and I am about to give one. $\endgroup$
    – suncoolsu
    Dec 15, 2010 at 9:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Computational poetry (PDF): citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/… $\endgroup$ Dec 15, 2010 at 16:15

2 Answers 2

4
$\begingroup$

Well here's one place de Leeuw says it: http://preprints.stat.ucla.edu/491/useR.pdf

It might also be found in a more formal document, but nothing in my collection...

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ @Conjugate (+1) Nice catch! $\endgroup$
    – chl
    Dec 15, 2010 at 19:38
  • $\begingroup$ Wooo! Hats off to your googling skills :-( Me sux. $\endgroup$
    – suncoolsu
    Dec 15, 2010 at 22:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Conjugate and Chl. You guys have put me in a dilemma: whose answer should I accept? $\endgroup$
    – suncoolsu
    Dec 15, 2010 at 22:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @suncoolsu No googling involved - I look through de Leeuw's mammoth preprint list once every 6 months to see what goodies have newly arrived. If you can bear the fierce matrix algebra and super terse presentation, there's always something interesting to read. $\endgroup$ Dec 15, 2010 at 22:30
  • $\begingroup$ @suncoolsu I like Jan's work (I was at this UseR also!), and actually I think you really should accept this answer. $\endgroup$
    – chl
    Dec 15, 2010 at 23:44
5
$\begingroup$

Maybe you are after this talk?

Tutorial: Methods for Reproducible Research, by Roger D. Peng (slide 3)

Also, papers on Reproducible research written by de Leeuw that I am aware of are Reproducible Research: the Bottom Line, and Statistical Software -- Overview. But a quick check didn't reveal any citation like the one you show.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ @chl. Thanks. You are a great resource. Did you google this? If yes, can you please enlighten me with your google-fu skills? And yes, I did check these two articles but didn't find the quotation. $\endgroup$
    – suncoolsu
    Dec 15, 2010 at 9:21
  • $\begingroup$ @suncoolsu Yes, I was lucky enough with reproducible research de leeuw "for every field" in Google, but as I know you have some background in genetics, I was initially expecting to get a hit from Bioconductor tutorials instead... $\endgroup$
    – chl
    Dec 15, 2010 at 10:13
  • $\begingroup$ @chl, suncoolsu: The brute-force obvious search on 'For every field "x" there exists a field "computational x"' turns up this thread as hit #1 and Peng's tutorial as hit #2. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Dec 15, 2010 at 17:44
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber I was adding an extra Jan de Leeuw to your search and I guess it messed up the results. $\endgroup$
    – suncoolsu
    Dec 15, 2010 at 22:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @suncoolsu In terms of "Google fu", a good approach seems to be to start with broad searches and then narrow them in response to the hits you are getting. Starting with an extremely narrow search risks overlooking good stuff. In this case even my search perhaps was too aggressive. When you consider, though, that every word in that quote can have many meanings unrelated to your intended topic, using the entire quotation seemed to be a reasonable starting point. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Dec 15, 2010 at 23:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.