Disconnecting idea development from it's historic development is a disservice to the audience that may want to dig deeper.
replyIf only there were some sort of way for a reader to dig deeper on a topic without a writer having to spoon-feed them the entire history of everything!
replyIt's wild to me what people here expect out of something they got for free and that was offered as a gift.
There's no reason a compelling walkthrough can't throw in historical citations, is there?
replyOften the most straightforward way to walk through an idea while teaching it is not the same order that the ideas were developed, and might not even use the same set of ideas in building up to it, so it can be tricky to get both the best explanation of the idea and the historical context in at the same time without making things more confusing.
replyI like to see ideas presented as the evolved. Each solution is developed as a perceived reaction to the shortcomings of the previous. This becomes a contrast and comparison as to why one idea is appropriate for a particular context.
replyExactly. The best science exposition combines both. See, The Mechanical Universe and Veritasium.
replyWhat specific historical citations would you like to see in this post?
replyPerhaps you could contact the author with your suggestions?
I'm speaking in general terms and I have not studied much on this subject so I don't have specific suggestions for this post. Please refer to earlier posts in this comment chain for a general idea of what citations would be useful.
replyThey did not come up with the ideas themselves, so they got them somewhere. Follow the source and all the citations show up. It must be a modern thing where online blogging randos pretend they are all geniuses.
replyBetter too assume they are just not aware. Technology is multi-layered cake of development. I have no doubt the only reason I know a lot of details is that I lived their development.
replyWhen standing on the shoulders of giants it's hard to tell what is below them.