How to handle unverified indirect claims?

dylanjr

Edit: I changed the title from "How do you take notes on claims attributed to secondary sources?" to "How to deal with unverified indirect claims?". @Andy pointed out that I am using the terms "primary source" and "secondary source" incorrectly. The distinction I was trying to make was between direct and indirect claims.

I'm currently working on taking more effective notes using the Zettelkasten method and have encountered a challenge when dealing with claims attributed to secondary sources.

For example, academic articles typically contain numerous references to outside sources. Many of the claims discussed are not original but rather derived from these secondary sources.

My struggle is with how to properly document these secondary claims in my notes when I'm unfamiliar with the sources being referenced. I feel uncomfortable directly citing them. However, these claims are often relevant and interesting, and I want to include them in my Zettelkasten for future reference.

Here are some questions I have:

• How do you approach taking notes on claims that are attributed to secondary sources when using the Zettelkasten method?
• Do you cite the original source, the secondary source, or both in your notes?
• How do you ensure accuracy and avoid misinterpretation when you're not directly familiar with the primary source?
• Any strategies for efficiently exploring the primary sources when they seem particularly crucial to your understanding of the topic?

I’d appreciate any advice or strategies that have worked for you when navigating this aspect of academic note-taking. Thanks in advance!

Will

Hi @dylanjr. These may not be the answers you are looking for.

What is your area of study? Are you an academic?

Here are some questions I have:

• How do you approach taking notes on claims that are attributed to secondary sources when using the Zettelkasten method?

If interesting, process both sources.

• Do you cite the original source, the secondary source, or both in your notes?

I'll cite both if I use both as a source for my thinking.

• How do you ensure accuracy and avoid misinterpretation when you're not directly familiar with the primary source?

I do the best I can, and there is never assurance I'm right.

• Any strategies for efficiently exploring the primary sources when they seem particularly crucial to your understanding of the topic?

As you said, "These claims are often relevant and interesting, and I want to include them in my Zettelkasten for future reference." When I come across an interesting claim referred to in a secondary source, I'll get that paper and process it. I'll then link the two notes together. This can lead to a rabbit hole, but it is worth it if the claims are fascinating and relevant.

This is the exciting part of zettelkasting: following the trail of an idea.

The only caveat I have, which may be sacrilegious, revolves around when to apply this level of investigation. I'm a retired want-to-be intellectual who picks and chooses when to forage down the rabbit hole and when not to.

dylanjr

Hi @Will. Thanks for the reply.

What is your area of study? Are you an academic?

I have degrees in music and fairly broad research interests.

I do read academic papers. I use them as an example because it's easy to understand what I mean.

Academics are generally good at meticulously citing existing claims from primary sources. Books, however, often reference claims from sources without properly citing, unless there's a quotation or a particularly important claim.

If interesting, process both sources.

Definitely. "Is it interesting or relevant?" is the first question I ask.

What I'm specifically curious about is how you reliably attribute the source of secondary claims. I may not have explained this well in my initial post.

It's not clear how to adequately handle secondary claims in Zettelkasten—this should really be the title of this thread.

Clarification

Let's say:

• [Source A] references a claim made by [Source B].
• [Source A] is a primary source, while [Source B] is a secondary source.
• Claims from [Source A] are direct claims and can be attributed directly to [Source A].
• Claims from [Source B] are secondary claims.

When taking notes from a primary source, you encounter:
1. Direct claims
2. Secondary claims
3. Your own thoughts

Regardless of whether these notes are in your own words, it can be unclear who made which claim.

While it's relatively straightforward to separate these in fleeting and literature notes, confusion arises when transforming them into permanent notes. This is especially true for secondary claims.

A possible solution is phrasing it like this: "Author of [Source B] claims X (as referenced in [Source A])."

ChatGPT came up with this solution: "Author A discusses concept X, originally proposed by Author B ([Source A] citing [Source B])."

Neither of these solutions seem adequate to me. This is because I am skeptical of claims of claims, or references to references.

Sorry for the long post, but I feel there's nuance here. I understand most people may not prioritize citing primary sources as much as I do.

TL;DR

Primary sources are more valuable and convincing. Good primary sources always cite primary sources of their own, which are usually secondary sources to me. The problem is that while it's important to note claims from secondary sources, it's often unclear how to reliably attribute those claims.

Andy

@dylanjr, I think you're using the terms primary source and secondary source differently than they are typically used, almost with an opposite sense. And I'm not sure that you are using the terms consistently. It may be best to drop the use of those terms.

@dylanjr said:

Neither of these solutions seem adequate to me. This is because I am skeptical of claims of claims, or references to references.

Let's say that Author A claimed that Author B said X. How can you be sure that Author B was really the first person to say X? Perhaps you and Authors A and B don't know that Author C really said X first. Depending on the claim, you may or may not be sure whether Author B really said it before someone else, but you know Author B said it before Author A. You just have to do the best you can to acknowledge intellectual debts. For me, acknowledging intellectual debts means citing both Author A and Author B, and indicating their relationship, because I know I'm indebted to both.

Why not say: "X (Source B, cited in Source A)."

Check both sources, to make sure they really said what you say they said, and cite both. That's what I usually do.

More relevant opinions on StackExchange:

• Do you need to read a whole article before citing it? (2014)
• Is it unethical to cite a paper or book that you have never looked at? (2015)
• Citing works in a list without having read them (2019)

The Office of Research Integrity of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services advises:

GUIDELINE 18: Generally, when describing others' work, do not cite an original paper if you are only relying on a secondary summary of that paper. Doing so is a deceptive practice, reflects poor scholarly standards, and can lead to a flawed description of the work described.

GUIDELINE 19: If an author must rely on a secondary source (e.g., textbook) to describe the contents of a primary source (e.g., an empirical journal article), s/he should consult writing manuals used in her discipline to follow the proper convention to do so. Above all, always indicate to the reader the actual source of the information being reported.

dylanjr

Hi @Andy.

It may be best to drop the use of those terms.

I accept your suggestion and feel foolish. The distinction I'm making is between direct claims and claims from outside sources.

How can you be sure that Author B was really the first person to say X?

I'm not really concerned about who made what claim first. I'm strictly concerned with who made what claim—full stop. It matters who the first was to make a claim only if you're making a claim about who was the first to make a claim.

Why not say: "X (Source B, cited in Source A)."

I guess this is fine.

To say that I'm skeptical of "claims of claims" means that I'm skeptical that X is true if Source A is claiming that Source B said so. That seems like a secondary claim to me.

I think the term "secondary claim" still works to refer to a claim from an outside source cited in a primary source—a "claim of a claim" in other words.

Regarding intellectual integrity, there's clearly a difference between a secondary claim and a direct claim, if you're still using my terms.

Feels too much like "a friend of a friend said so" or "some guy I know". Like who's this guy? Is he reputable?

Check both sources, to make sure they really said what you say they said, and cite both. That's what I usually do.

Okay, but say you don't have the time to check both sources or vet both authors.

This was a helpful perspective from one of the StackExchange links:
"When you cite a source, you are not actually claiming that you have read it. What you are actually doing is staking your professional reputation on that source containing the information that you claim that it contains."

Still, I'm unconvinced that you should stake your reputation on what I'm calling "secondary claims".

ctietze

Citing 'blindly' can lead to all sorts of disappointments. Take these hints as such, but do check the primary/original source.

Misattribution of aphorisms (Source A says that Source B says X, but it's actually C who said it) is one problem.

Spreading misinformation and falsehood is much worse, and it would stem from the same lazy practice of not checking the original:

Source A claims that Source B points out that X is the case. If you check, Source B actually points out Y instead, and Source A misinterpreted/misrepresented the whole thing. Or a nuance is left out, or a quote is taken out of context -- and once you check the original, you can see what's actually the case.

This happens all the time. I notice it with trade knowledge of programming where people never read the original three or so sentences, and just retell sentence 1/3 out of context; I notice this in how midwives tell tales about how e.g. eating dates is beneficial for women during labor. It's time consuming to check the originals, but without doing so, you're never on firm ground. Second-hand knowledge can become useless too quickly. Acknowledge when you don't check the original. Leave a note for yourself; mark the reference as "not citable". It may be that you have time to check later. Likely, though, you'll be pressed for time just as much during retrieval of that incomplete note as you are when you wrote it and took the shortcut to not check the claims. Then you will never be able to utilize it. So don't make this a habit. Otherwise you'll end up adding garbage to your system, and what's the point in that?

JoshA

As said, leave a signifier that the primary source has not be verified. Then, depending on how important it is to you, you can check it later. You cannot check everything in life; not to mention the skills required to properly interpret various studies.

" I notice this in how midwives tell tales about how e.g. eating dates is beneficial for women during labor." @ctietze

I was told strawberries are bad for men the other day and I shouldn't eat them. The amount of misinformation circulating in the world is unbearable at times; I don't have the time to check everything!

boxcariii

@ctietze said:
Source A claims that Source B points out that X is the case. If you check, Source B actually points out Y instead, and Source A misinterpreted/misrepresented the whole thing. Or a nuance is left out, or a quote is taken out of context -- and once you check the original, you can see what's actually the case.

I think this becomes even more complicated when you start talking about anything experimental. This came up in your processing of range and Sascha talks about it frequently as well. You go check the original source and the authors make some claim, but when you read through their experiments, you realize their claim is not supported by the data. Or maybe the data does support it, but then when you go through the code for the analysis, you realize there is a bug.

@JoshA said:
Then, depending on how important it is to you, you can check it later. You cannot check everything in life; not to mention the skills required to properly interpret various studies.

I think this is right. If you have to be certain of anything that goes into your Zettelkasten, then nothing will ever make it in. The certainty required should probably be proportional to the level of importance of the information.

As an example, in the book Outlive, Peter Atalia makes claims about the benefits of rapamycin for longevity. At this point it is enough for me to note that. If someday I wanted to consider taking that drug, I would do a much deeper dive on the evidence for his claims.

dylanjr

@ctietze said:
Second-hand knowledge can become useless too quickly. Acknowledge when you don't check the original. Leave a note for yourself; mark the reference as "not citable". It may be that you have time to check later. Likely, though, you'll be pressed for time just as much during retrieval of that incomplete note as you are when you wrote it and took the shortcut to not check the claims. Then you will never be able to utilize it. So don't make this a habit. Otherwise you'll end up adding garbage to your system, and what's the point in that?

This is probably what I needed to hear—thank you. I don't want to add garbage to my system, as you put it. And it seems we all agree that unverified claims are garbage.

Like you mention, a useful strategy for adding a claim you haven't had a chance to verify yet is to leave yourself a mark of some kind that means "not citable".

@JoshA said:
not to mention the skills required to properly interpret various studies.

Ahh yes… Critical Thinking Skills. That's my favorite topic!

@boxcariii said:
If you have to be certain of anything that goes into your Zettelkasten, then nothing will ever make it in. The certainty required should probably be proportional to the level of importance of the information.

Good point. Certainty can never be absolute for any claim. This feels like a good rule of thumb to me.

Thank you for all your replies—they are useful in improving my understanding of Zettelkasten and knowledge work.

Note: I'm going to update the title of this thread so that it reflects the proper terminology.

dylanjr

I found this good example from @ctietze's video series breaking down his note-taking process for David Epstein's book, Range. Here, you can see how Christian writes [not citable] followed by the reference tag after the claim.

Here is the link to the section in the video:

BTW—I find these videos immensely useful.

Sascha

Primary sources are more valuable and convincing. Good primary sources always cite primary sources of their own, which are usually secondary sources to me. The problem is that while it's important to note claims from secondary sources, it's often unclear how to reliably attribute those claims.

I hope I understood you correctly... If an author is citing a source but then builds on the source, you have two primary sources and one secondary source.

1. The source that you are processing is a secondary source in the regard of using another source as justification for a statement. Example: Dogs are better than cats (Fast, 2024, 24). This statement has to be based on Fast2024 and checked for its reliability (the quality of its justification).
2. The source that you are processing is also a primary source in that regard of creating an own argument. Example: Dogs are better than cats,(Fast, 2024, 24) which means that dogs are also better than birds since we already established that cats are better than birds.
3. (Fast, 2024, 24) is the primary reference for the statement "Dogs are better than cats".

When you process, you just need to be careful which knowledge building block you are extracting (the value statement or the argument). If you extract the argument you will also need to check the reliability provided by the source. But if you don't care about the relationship between dogs and birds, then you don't need the argument.

Martin

Apart from the fact that plants are of course better than dogs and cats, I would include a hint about the birds, and leave an open end in my notes, because I can't decide today about the further interest of the future me (does the train of thought go further and deeper at some point in the future?) and would most certainly be thankful for the little direction.

Sascha

@Martin said:
Apart from the fact that plants are of course better than dogs and cats,

I am looking forward to a video of you playing fetch with your favorite plant.

I would include a hint about the birds, and leave an open end in my notes, because I can't decide today about the further interest of the future me (does the train of thought go further and deeper at some point in the future?) and would most certainly be thankful for the little direction.

Yes, I agree. This would be the proper long-term Zettelkasten way.

dylanjr

@Sascha said:
I hope I understood you correctly... If an author is citing a source but then builds on the source, you have two primary sources and one secondary source.

When you process, you just need to be careful which knowledge building block you are extracting (the value statement or the argument). If you extract the argument you will also need to check the reliability provided by the source. But if you don't care about the relationship between dogs and birds, then you don't need the argument.

You understand me—even with my confusing terminology! 😬

But as was pointed out, "primary" and "secondary" source are not the best terms for what I was trying to describe.

Your advice to focus on the "knowledge building block"—as you put it—still applies. Then, you have to check the reliability of that knowledge building block by going to the original source yourself.

@Martin said:
I would include a hint… and leave an open end in my notes, because I can't decide today about the further interest of the future me (does the train of thought go further and deeper at some point in the future?) and would most certainly be thankful for the little direction.

I see now how useful this strategy of leaving hints would be long-term. This same line of thought is why you'd leave a hint that something is "not citable", as was discussed earlier in this thread.

I appreciate all the actually useful insight on what was initially a very poorly phrased question.

harr

• How do you approach taking notes on claims that are attributed to secondary sources when using the Zettelkasten method?

I start with answering the question: Who said what when where? For example:

1. Yesterday I overheard a stranger in the bar talking about a friend of a friend who believes that Elvis Presley is still alive.
2. Jane Doe wrote 2023 in her book The Elvis Mystery that there have been at least 12345 documented sightings of Elvis being alive.
3. The Youtube-Video "Elvis alive?!?" uploaded by @jane on April 1st, 2024 shows a video of Elvis drinking a tea at Starbucks.

My focus is on capturing accurately, how I came in contact with the claim. And I do something that some Zettelkasten fans frown upon: I add a literal quote of the statement to my notes.

The quote is a first step of quality control:

1. No quote available. This is just my personal memory of hearsay.
2. A quote available: "Many blogs and newspaper articles report Elvis sighting. A quick search in Google reveals 12345 results." This quote is the source of my knowledge about the claim.
3. Transcribe the relevant section of the video with timestamps. Add a link to the video. Possibly even download the video for future reference and analysis.

In my experience I interpret a quote differently on a later reading. A closer reading of example 2 shows, that I misread the statement the first time. This is not an accurate number of documented sightings. It's just an estimate of the number of online texts somehow claiming that Elvis was alive.

So far I'm not verifying anything. I'm just documenting, what I actually know.

• Do you cite the original source, the secondary source, or both in your notes?

I cite what I know. I have no idea if the other source actually exists or if it's cited correctly or if it says what it is supposed to say.

I treat the other source as a potential lead. It might exist. It might actually be quoted correctly. And it might even contain the attributed claim. But I just down know yet.

In my Zettelkasten (plain Markdown files in Obsidian) I add the potential lead as a todo (- [ ] Check referenced article Miller (2013)) or with a tag (Miller (2013) #check_source) or as a question (Does Miller (2013) really claim that Elvis is still alive?).

• How do you ensure accuracy and avoid misinterpretation when you're not directly familiar with the primary source?

By not treating it as a source.

Unless I have verified that source, it's just a rumor.

• Any strategies for efficiently exploring the primary sources when they seem particularly crucial to your understanding of the topic?

Get the source. Read the source. Write a detailed bibliographical note. Summarize your interpretation in your own words. Add extensive quotes of the verified claims in the author's own words.

dylanjr

Hi, so I've been spending part of a quiet Saturday evening watching and processing the discussion between @Sascha and @scottscheper on YouTube titled, "Analog vs. Digital Zettelkasten with Sascha Fast (From Zettelkasten.de)". I genuinely love this kind of good-natured content!

At 1:56:00, Sascha and Scott briefly discuss why it's important to always process the original source.

Sascha: "… and most of the time, I'm not even processing what is in the book, but what is in the reference from the book. So it's like I'm just going from reference to reference because I always read the primary reference. So sometimes I need to go two steps into the referencing because some authors are very indirect with their referencing and reference through other sources, and then I need to track the information down to its original source."
Scott: "…so for instance, if I read a book that quotes some other source, you're saying that oftentimes when you go to the source, that source really got it from another source, and then you have to chase down the other source to get to the primary source of where that quote or where that idea was said. Because you can't just rely on the secondary source because there's context from wherein that original sourced quote came from."
Sascha: "Yeah, it's hearsay. It's just hearsay that you're processing if you don't go to the primary source."

Sascha then goes on to make the useful comparison to gossip.

I thought I'd share this here because this part of the conversation closely mirrors the discussion in this thread about the importance of citing sources accurately and maintaining intellectual integrity in knowledge work.

Interestingly, the "primary" vs "secondary" terminology is being used here (see earlier comments from @Andy regarding the use of these terms). Context clues show we are all talking about the same thing: unverified indirect claims.