Definitions in Literature Note vs. Zettel Note

Sascha

@harr said:
Have you quietly dropped reading notes from the conversation?

Snarkiness doesn't help here.

How is paperness an essential quality here?

Let us return to the main topic of this thread.

I didn't drop the topic but continued it by quoting you and reacting to the quote ("proto-atomic notes"). If I missed something that I should address you may point that out.

Why dodging the point that you brought up yourself?

@Sascha said:
Let's focus on this one example:
You found an argument X while reading source Y. Which historical method (or methods inspired by the historical methods) help you directly testing its soundness or providing empirical evidence for its premises?

I'm not sure how to answer that question.

• "while reading" is a temporal statement. I can find arguments while doing anything, even while swimming in a lake. ;-) I assume you're asking about the arguments I find in the source that I'm reading.
• a "historical method" in the sense of an older method has been mentioned already: Eco's large index cards for reading notes. When I mentioned "the historical method" as an influence, I had the "historisch-kritische Methode" in mind and how the University Bern explains as "Historische Methode". (These are German texts for your convenience.)
• "directly testing [an argument's] soundness or providing empirical evidence for its premises" is not a use case for my reading notes. Reading notes serve other purposes.

If engaging with the argument (of which testing its soundness of an argument at least the validity is part of) is not the purpose of the reading notes and the lack of engagement is indicative for the lack of engagement with the other building blocks, it is not the case that reading notes adhere to the principle of atomicity as you pointed out here.

However, here you say that you analyse the argument of which validity and soundness should be mandatory characteristics:

Reading notes—or source notes—are the notes where the source itself is the focus. I use them for anything where I need the source as context, from collecting definitions (see OP) to critically evaluating the source as source document or for analyzing an argument in its original context.

I don't see how any historical method is actively used to engage with knowledge.

And I don't see that historical methods are in any form incompatible to historical methods as you said here:

@harr said:

@Sascha said:
Tracking the idea's source is not a tool to augment processing the idea as material for knowledge work, but a tool to cite correctly (e.g. avoid plagiarism, give credit, document sourcing, etc.)

That's your approach to knowledge work.

My approach is influenced by the historical method, where sources are the foundation of pretty much everything.

In fact, "my approach" is even applicable for historians (Howell/Prevenier was a major influence for me).

harr

I'd like to use your comment as an example, how I engage with a source.

The source in this case is the discussion thread Definitions in Literature Note vs. Zettel Note. Your comment is the most recent message in the thread.

1. Atomicity in reading notes

@Sascha said:
I didn't drop the topic but continued it by quoting you and reacting to the quote ("proto-atomic notes").

When I read such a claim, my first impulse is to check the source:

@harr asked:
Why should such proto-atoms not live in the reading note for a while, before we decontextualize them as proper zettels?

@Sascha replied:
The answer is already covered in the guide to atomicity: Having proto-atomic notes in your Zettelkasten is completely fine. :)

I was talking about the internal structure of a reading note, you shifted the conversation to proto-atomic notes.

I can't tell if you made a honest mistake and misread my question, or if you introduced "proto-atomic notes" as a red herring. When you're quoting "proto-atomic notes", you're not quoting me, you are quoting yourself.

@Sascha said:
If I missed something that I should address you may point that out.

You're missing that I'm using your terminology, when I differentiate between atom and atomic note.

• My term "proto-atom" refers to what you call knowledge atom.
• Your term "proto-atomic notes" refers to what you call atomic notes.

I read your description of your flavor of the Zettelkasten method in The Principle of Atomicity. You yourself make the distinction between knowledge atoms and atomic notes. I'm referring to what you call "atomicity as desired outcome". You write (emphasis added):

For the sake of atomicity, I actively recommended postponing the atomisation to a level of understanding that allows you to isolate ideas with reasonable confidence. That means that notes are not atomic for a long time, but continuously approach atomicity as a desired outcome. This allows you to start the thinking process almost immediately in your Zettelkasten. Practically speaking, you start writing in your Zettelkasten right away and figure out the atomicity of your notes during this process. But the timeline is up to you and the material.

The difference between your flavor of zettelkasten and mine is that you do this work in zettels, whereas I do some of this work in reading notes. I find it easier to create zettels only after I reached a level of understanding that allows me to isolate ideas with reasonable confidence.

2. Paperness

@Sascha said:
How is paperness an essential quality here?

Not sure what you mean. Paperness is a property of paper index cards, not of digital notes. I'm advocating digital reading notes.

Let's go back to the source (our thread). Where did "paperness" enter the discussion? I didn't introduce the term, you did. You insisted on making a connection between "paperness" and the "overall line of thought and exchange". You introduced the idea that paperness is "essential" and that I use Luhmann as a "justification" for my own digital practices.

I'm only saying that my practice is compatible with Luhmann's practice. So if somebody claims as argumentum ab auctoritate, that we mustn't have reading notes in our zettelkasten, because Luhmann didn't have reading notes in his zettelkasten, I'd point to Luhmann's zettelkasten and say: "well, he did write reading notes, and here's where you can find them in the digital edition".

3. Soundness and validity of arguments

@Sascha said:
If engaging with the argument (of which testing its soundness of an argument at least the validity is part of) is not the purpose of the reading notes and the lack of engagement is indicative for the lack of engagement with the other building blocks, it is not the case that reading notes adhere to the principle of atomicity as you pointed out here.

I appreciate the if in that sentence. But as mentioned before, you're missing that I differentiate between atomic note ("one atom, one note") and "atomicity as an ideal":

@harr said:
Reading notes only break the principle of atomicity, when atomicity relies on the "one atom, one note" rule. But if the actual goal of atomicity is to identify knowledge building blocks, reading notes can be a very useful tool to achieve atomicity

Your if introduces a normative statement: "engaging" requires "testing". How is this relevant for atomicity?

@Sascha said:
However, here you say that you analyse the argument of which validity and soundness should be mandatory characteristics:

You're introducing a normative ideal ("should by mandatory characteristics"). I don't share that normative ideal.

The focus of my analysis in reading notes is not testing, but understanding. I'm not decontextualizing the argument, I'm reading it within the original context. I'm trying to understand, what the author is trying to say. I'm evaluating "validity and soundness" only to the extent that is providedd within the original context. For example:

• How does the author present the argument?
• How does the author support the argument?
• What evidence does the author provide?
• What is missing in the author's presentation, that would make it easier to check for "validity and soundness"?
• Does the author rely on logical fallacies, eg argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ab auctoritate, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad passiones, equivocation, strawman, red herring,…?

Before I can test an argument, I need to understand what argument the author is making.

4. Historical method

@Sascha said:
I don't see how any historical method is actively used to engage with knowledge.

What I find so fascinating about the historical method is an insight about the sources of our knowledge: whatever we think we know about the past is derived from sources. So it matters, how we "choose, authenticate, decode, compare, and, finally, interpret those sources". (I'm quoting from the amazon page you linked.)

When you "engage" with "knowledge", what kind of engagement and knowledge do you have in mind? Where does this knowledge come from, if not from sources?

@Sascha said:
And I don't see that historical methods are in any form incompatible to historical methods (…)

Sorry, I don't understand.

@Sascha said:
In fact, "my approach" is even applicable for historians (Howell/Prevenier was a major influence for me).

Sorry, I can't follow the logic. I understand that book was an influence for you. But how does this relate to your flavor of the ZKM being applicable to historians?

Sascha

Atomicity (not just atomicity in reading notes)

@Sascha said:
I didn't drop the topic but continued it by quoting you and reacting to the quote ("proto-atomic notes").

When I read such a claim, my first impulse is to check the source:

@harr asked:
Why should such proto-atoms not live in the reading note for a while, before we decontextualize them as proper zettels?

@Sascha replied:
The answer is already covered in the guide to atomicity: Having proto-atomic notes in your Zettelkasten is completely fine. :)

I was talking about the internal structure of a reading note, you shifted the conversation to proto-atomic notes.

I can't tell if you made a honest mistake and misread my question, or if you introduced "proto-atomic notes" as a red herring. When you're quoting "proto-atomic notes", you're not quoting me, you are quoting yourself.

Don't introduce false dilemmas. Choice architecture is not warranted. Especially, considering the last choice.

I am not shifting the debate to anything, but I draw wider boundaries for this line of thought.

The whole connection to the principle of atomicity was brought up by your here.

@Sascha said:
If I missed something that I should address you may point that out.

You're missing that I'm using your terminology, when I differentiate between atom and atomic note.

No, I didn't miss that.

• My term "proto-atom" refers to what you call knowledge atom.
• Your term "proto-atomic notes" refers to what you call atomic notes.

I read your description of your flavor of the Zettelkasten method in The Principle of Atomicity. You yourself make the distinction between knowledge atoms and atomic notes. I'm referring to what you call "atomicity as desired outcome". You write (emphasis added):

For the sake of atomicity, I actively recommended postponing the atomisation to a level of understanding that allows you to isolate ideas with reasonable confidence. That means that notes are not atomic for a long time, but continuously approach atomicity as a desired outcome. This allows you to start the thinking process almost immediately in your Zettelkasten. Practically speaking, you start writing in your Zettelkasten right away and figure out the atomicity of your notes during this process. But the timeline is up to you and the material.

The difference between your flavor of zettelkasten and mine is that you do this work in zettels, whereas I do some of this work in reading notes. I find it easier to create zettels only after I reached a level of understanding that allows me to isolate ideas with reasonable confidence.

I like to remind you that the initial position is that taking reading notes as a standard practice was what I wrote first.

If it helps you or even just think that it helps you: more power to you. The evaluation of this practice becomes relevant if we ask the question whether taking reading notes is generally beneficial. As a standard practice from which you deviate in specific cases, as a special practice that is the deviation from your standard practice, as dependent on the source material you are working with, etc.

Paperness

@Sascha said:
How is paperness an essential quality here?

Not sure what you mean. Paperness is a property of paper index cards, not of digital notes. I'm advocating digital reading notes.

Let's go back to the source (our thread). Where did "paperness" enter the discussion?

The paperness entered the thread way earlier: Here

I didn't introduce the term, you did. You insisted on making a connection between "paperness" and the "overall line of thought and exchange". You introduced the idea that paperness is "essential" and that I use Luhmann as a "justification" for my own digital practices.

I didn't introduce the idea that paper is essential. The paperness of the bibliographical notes being an essential characteristic to the validity of the comparison is implied by yourself.

I'm only saying that my practice is compatible with Luhmann's practice. So if somebody claims as argumentum ab auctoritate, that we mustn't have reading notes in our zettelkasten, because Luhmann didn't have reading notes in his zettelkasten, I'd point to Luhmann's zettelkasten and say: "well, he did write reading notes, and here's where you can find them in the digital edition".

Nobody said that you mustn't have reading notes in our Zettelkastens here.

Engaging with arguments

@Sascha said:
If engaging with the argument (of which testing its soundness of an argument at least the validity is part of) is not the purpose of the reading notes and the lack of engagement is indicative for the lack of engagement with the other building blocks, it is not the case that reading notes adhere to the principle of atomicity as you pointed out here.

I appreciate the if in that sentence. But as mentioned before, you're missing that I differentiate between atomic note ("one atom, one note") and "atomicity as an ideal":

@harr said:
Reading notes only break the principle of atomicity, when atomicity relies on the "one atom, one note" rule. But if the actual goal of atomicity is to identify knowledge building blocks, reading notes can be a very useful tool to achieve atomicity

Your if introduces a normative statement: "engaging" requires "testing". How is this relevant for atomicity?

I think this is answered below.

@Sascha said:
However, here you say that you analyse the argument of which validity and soundness should be mandatory characteristics:

You're introducing a normative ideal ("should by mandatory characteristics"). I don't share that normative ideal.

I can't think of any possible world in which validity or soundness are not mandatory characteristics to look out for when dealing with arguments.

The focus of my analysis in reading notes is not testing, but understanding. I'm not decontextualizing the argument, I'm reading it within the original context. I'm trying to understand, what the author is trying to say. I'm evaluating "validity and soundness" only to the extent that is providedd within the original context. For example:

• How does the author present the argument?
• How does the author support the argument?
• What evidence does the author provide?
• What is missing in the author's presentation, that would make it easier to check for "validity and soundness"?
• Does the author rely on logical fallacies, eg argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ab auctoritate, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad passiones, equivocation, strawman, red herring,…?

Before I can test an argument, I need to understand what argument the author is making.

Perhaps you got distracted by the word "test". I don't mean testing as challenging. I mean testing as diagnosing.

I don't want to get into the weeds of how to engage with an argument because this leads us far astray from the topic, but all of your items are part of evaluating the validity and soundness of the argument.

Historical method

@Sascha said:
I don't see how any historical method is actively used to engage with knowledge.

What I find so fascinating about the historical method is an insight about the sources of our knowledge: whatever we think we know about the past is derived from sources. So it matters, how we "choose, authenticate, decode, compare, and, finally, interpret those sources". (I'm quoting from the amazon page you linked.)

When you "engage" with "knowledge", what kind of engagement and knowledge do you have in mind?

Where does this knowledge come from, if not from sources?

I don't understand the juxtaposition of this question. So, I don't understand how to meaningfully answer or even engage with the question.

@Sascha said:
And I don't see that historical methods are in any form incompatible to historical methods (…)

Sorry, I don't understand.

Sorry, I got lost in the editing. It should say: "And I don't see that historical methods are in any form incompatible with my method."

You put our approaches in opposition "this is your approach. My approach is influenced by the historical method."

This opposition doesn't make sense to me because my approach is perfectly applicable and compatible with the work as a historian and historical methods.

@Sascha said:
In fact, "my approach" is even applicable for historians (Howell/Prevenier was a major influence for me).

Sorry, I can't follow the logic. I understand that book was an influence for you. But how does this relate to your flavor of the ZKM being applicable to historians?

My flavor of the Zettelkasten Method is a superset of the historical method. Or in other words: If you are a historian, you can perfectly apply my flavor of the Zettelkasten Method to structure your work.

harr

Engaging with arguments

@Sascha said:
I don't want to get into the weeds of how to engage with an argument because this leads us far astray from the topic, (…)

Agreed.

Historical method

@Sascha said:
My flavor of the Zettelkasten Method is a superset of the historical method.

I'd love to read a blog post where you elaborate on this claim. :-) As a reader I'd would hope that it answers questions like:

• How do you define historical method?
• How do you define your flavor of the Zettelkasten method?
• What do the methods have in common?
• What are differences between the methods?
• How does your method expand on the historical method?
• How does the historical method work with sources?
• How does your method work with sources?
• How are those ways of working with source compatible?
• What are concrete examples where the historical method reaches a limit, that your method overcomes?

Comparing paper ZK with digital ZK

@Sascha said:
I didn't introduce the idea that paper is essential. The paperness of the bibliographical notes being an essential characteristic to the validity of the comparison is implied by yourself.

Yes, we were talking about a particular comparison. But it was you, who introduced the terms "paperness" and "essential". I used metaphorical language: "compare apples with apples".

The bigger issue might be a topic for a separate thread: How comparable are digital zettelkastens and paper-based zettelkastens?

When you say "standard practice", do you mean digital standard practices or do you mean technologically agnostic standard practices, that include paper-based standard practices?

Wasteful standard practice

@Sascha said:
I like to remind you that the initial position is that taking reading notes as a standard practice was what I wrote first.

Yes, you did write:

I see taking literature notes as a standard workflow step as wasteful.

I picked up on your judgement that the step was "wasteful". I contrasted your position with Eco's (emphasis added):

• You consider reading notes wasteful.
• Eco considers reading notes indispensable.

I'm still wondering how you justify "wasteful". "Wasteful" compared to what?

If you're comparing your flavor of the Zettelkasten Method to Eco's standard practice, I'd like to hear why you consider his recommendation to write reading notes wasteful.

If you're comparing your flavor of the Zettelkasten Method to Luhmann's standard practice, I'd like to know why you consider his reading notes wasteful. You acknowledged that reading notes were part of his standard practice.

For readers who want to watch Luhmann himself explaining his process in Beobachter im Krähennest: the sequence starts in this video at 37:55 min:

I tried to identify the reading note. I think it is this one:

Luhmann didn't throw the reading note away. He kept it permanently in the Zettelkasten (= the wooden boxes). Here's the reverse side with the bibliographical data:

The curious reader can compare Luhmann's reading notes with the source. Susan Leigh Star's Simplification in Scientific Work: An Example from Neuroscience Research (1983) can be accessed online at JSTOR.

What kind of zettels did he write when working with the source? I think we can see zettel 7/25a44a in the video. It references "Star 1983":

Do you consider Luhmann's standard practice wasteful?

Location of reading notes

@Sascha said:
Nobody said that you mustn't have reading notes in our Zettelkastens here.

If occasional reading notes are allowed in your flavor of the Zettelkasten method, where do you recommend storing them?