[asgraham]

I know for a fact [1] that the neuroscientific discoveries were not independent of physics: the people doing the developing were largely former physicists. They likely didn't cite anything because why would you cite phase transitions or criticality? You learn about them in class as a physicist. I strongly suspect the ecology results weren't independent either, but all the theoretical ecologists I know are relatively young (if mostly former physicists) so no first person accounts.

The part of this that could totally be true is that a clinical application somewhere along the way "independently" "reinvented" it. There's a hilarious collection of peer-reviewed journal articles out there inventing a "new" method of calculating the sizes of shapes and areas under the curve. The method involves adding up really small rectangles. (I think a top comment already mentioned the Tai article [2])

[1] source: my doctoral advisor was a really really old theoretical neuroscientist who trained as an electrical engineer and mathematician. If you want a more concrete example, the work of Bard Ermentrout on neural criticality starting in the 70's or 80's. He read a lot of physics textbooks.

[2] https://science.slashdot.org/story/10/12/06/0416250/medical-...

[energyscholar]

Good correction! Ermentrout is a fair example. You're right that a lot of neuroscience criticality work came from retrained physicists. The paper distinguishes between independent derivation and cross-trained import. The title for this post over-simplifies this. I made this change to try to increase engagement, since the full detailed title got zero engagement.

Where I'd push back: even after physicists brought the tools into neuroscience, the receiving field didn't connect it back to the parallel work in ecology or cardiology. Ermentrout's neural work and Goldberger's cardiac work used the same underlying math but didn't cross-cite. The silos reformed around the imported tools.

You're correct that "none of them knew" is too strong. Fair point. "Most of them didn't talk to each other even after import" is closer to what the citation data actually shows.

[zozbot234]

> because why would you cite phase transitions or criticality? You learn about them in class as a physicist

I'm not sure if you're being entirely serious with that remark, but clearly citing the earlier work would have bolstered their credibility: interdisciplinary research is a plus and hardly something to hide. If it's something that's taught in physics class, you can cite a common textbook.

[semi-extrinsic]

The disease of having 100 citations in each paper had not yet broken out when the papers in question were written. A good paper in 1994 probably had about 8 references, and certainly not any to common textbooks.

[saltcured]

I would read it as there being a different threshold for what is citation-worthy versus presumed background knowledge.

Imagine if every graphics paper had to cite every concept they use from arithmetic, trigonometry, and linear algebra textbooks...

[zozbot234]

This was citation worthy because it's new knowledge to the field. Even in a graphics paper, you can cite whatever basic techniques you're using if it's not clear that everyone will be familiar with them.