Why do people write comments like this?
Pretty much the first thing the article does is define what it’s talking about. But you skip that, pull some other quote out of context, then attack that out of context quote.
And then you subtly change the topic, from “tools for scientific thought” to “[stuff that is] essential to scientific thought.” Are you hoping no one notices?
What do you get out of this?
To be fair, what a tool for scientific thought is comes labelled as a definition, but it reads like a theorem.
> What do you get out of this?
Apparently, needlessly aggressive replies from strangers on the Internet. Let me smooth out my first comment. If your field of research is purely theoretical or can do without data you'll be fine with a network of notes, and it is actually really interesting to discuss the UX/UI of those!
But when it comes to the "definition" I am accused of skipping:
> A “tool for scientific thought” could be many things, but it must be a tool for the development and interlinking of scientific ideas in a way that facilitates authoring, publishing, teaching, learning, and the maintenance of evergreen notes.
I am very curious to understand how this lessens my point. It starts by saying "could be many things" (the opposite of a definition) and ends up talking about the bespoke concept of "evergreen notes".
It ends up talking about tools for scientific _authoring_ which in many cases is the iceberg tip of scientific _thought_. I stand by my point that the latter needs collecting, retrieving, relating, and interlinking experimental data at least as much as it needs to do the same with snippets of text.