[Dark Knight]

Thanks for the information. Econo metric should be about economic impact and the measurements of the phenomena. It is really a socio metric measure. Of course it does not lend much to any argument on the importance of Darwinism since controversy does not necessarily equate to importance.

DNA for example, is a paradigm change. It was a discovery that gave mechanism to Mendel's work. There is NO WAY the economic importance of Darwinism, NeoDarwinism or most of the other ToE's can be compared.

Of course Murray's work can prove that Darwin is talked about more. Maybe Mendel should get a publicist.

Besides Bach was robbed.

LOL

Thanks for the info on Murray, but I'll pass on the methodology. If the name does not describe the info, it intends to mislead. Nomenclature used to attempt to accurately describe what is being named, now it is newspeak.

Econo without economics. At least metrics is an attempt to measure.

DK

[GSlob]

"...Murray's work can prove that Darwin is talked about more. Maybe Mendel should get a publicist. "
Murray was attempting to measure the talk by, about, and for, professionals. A publicist could get a client into the society pages of NYT, but to get somebody into, say, a musical encyclopedia would be nontrivial even for the best PR joint - and even more difficult to get a client there to figure prominently, and not as a footnote.
Murray's "qualified sources" were never intended for mass consumption, but mostly serve as solid, and stolid, reference works in specialized fields. More, Murray tried, wherever possible, to pick those "qualified sources" from different countries, and prudently cut off his analysis at 1950, so as to avoid fads and let the time sort the things out, more or less.