The Fora: A Higher Education Community

First let me mention that I'm a doctoral candidate in Africana Studies-so talking about things about race, sexuality, class, etc are nothing new to me. But I've stumbled upon this recurring and popular genre of academic literature that confounds me and I can't tell if its because I'm stupid or because the writing is that bad. Many of my colleagues seem to "get it" and sing praises of these specific books but their commentary so equally amorphous that I feel like some oblivious outsider looking in.

I've been encountering these academic texts that have this style of writing that is absolutely incoherent and impossible for me to decipher (I've been trying in good faith, rereading pages over and over and over). I've noticed most of these books are clustered in the Duke University Press, NYU Press, and some in University of California Press (not saying these presses are bad-some of my favorite books are from them). They take up worthy and critical subjects like race and sexuality, but write so amorphously I can't figure out what the hell they're talking about. They'll spend the entire introduction refusing to clearly articulate their position or what concepts they're using, opting instead for a pedantic back and forth of "im saying this...but also not this" like "queerness is the corporeal potentialities of futurity" "but also a politics of flesh which refuses the very same spatiotemporal and disciplinary logics." I can't figure out what the thesis, methods, or findings are.

Also, I don't know why their editors let them get away with using inconsistent and all over the place qualifiers. One paragraph will list an entangled description of identities like, "children of color, migrants, women of color femmes, poor people" and then the next one will talk about "Latinx, two spirit, and racialized gendered femmes." The same is done for descriptions of historical forces. One paragraph will namedrop, in a single sentence, "the forces of slavery, colonialism, immigration, carcerality, cisheteropatriarchy"  and the next a different list. Each of these merit a book of their own. These qualifiers are *good*, but their exhaustive and fumbled usage is not. And the exhaustive list makes it hard to pin down exactly what story is being told. It's like by trying to say and include everything, absolutely nothing is said.

These texts read more like pretentious blog manifestos than works of scholarship that make novel contributions to a field of knowledge. But they get through peer review and publication by prestigious presses like NYU and Duke...?

Your gut reaction is correct. It's terrible writing, used to obfuscate the fact that the authors actually have nothing to say.

Yes, this is a dreadful habit that conflates obscurity with erudition. I try to smack it down in my students whenever it crops up. Sometimes they get rather salty when I tell them that their attempts to impress me with their vocabulary fail. One student tried to use 'dilatory' instead of 'slow', and so ended up talking about the 'dilatory pace of evolution', which I guess works in the context of intelligent design and a lazy clockmaker, but absolutely did not work in context!

Quote from: spork on November 26, 2020, 12:07:48 PM
Your gut reaction is correct. It's terrible writing, used to obfuscate the fact that the authors actually have nothing to say.

+1

But don't go shouting that the emperor has no clothes in the wrong places. That will get you expelled from the club.
Nevertheless, now that you have identified this weakness, you can--through excellent scholarship--become a leading scholar in the subjects that led you to major in Africana.

At the very least, the rest of us would appreciate being able to read something that is interpretable from this important and timely field of study.

Yeah.

Some (but not all!) of it, I think, stems from the influence of bad philosophy, or of cursory engagement with philosophy, where the author associates difficulty with quality. A lot of people like to read philosophers outside the philosophy classroom, and that's a really good thing. I'm really glad that happens. But the subject is very hard, and depending on what you're reading, it might require you to be acquainted with a pretty extensive background of ideas (and to move through the text much more slowly than you are). And if you don't have that, and you're teaching it to people who don't have that, then there's not a lot left in there for you to glom on to, so you give it a very cursory reading, and your students get a very cursory understanding, and it becomes really easy to conflate difficulty of reading with quality of argumentation. And, to be clear, I don't think people are especially blameworthy for this. Interdisciplinarity is hard.

But it doesn't take very long for a process like that to produce a generation or two of poorly informed scholars who delight in nonsense, especially when you add in incentives to publish and to look like a 'genius' compared to everyone else (*cough* Jordan Petersen *cough*). And the problem, I think, is exacerbated by the fact that that's where the engagement with ideas in philosophy ends--you get some of the mid-20th century, maybe, and then nothing else. None of the responses, refinements, breakthroughs, etc.

Literary 'theory' is my usual go-to on this front (with my sincere appy polly loggies for the ruffled feathers!). Philosophy has had a very skewed influence there, and it's an influence that seems to have mostly ended in the middle of the twentieth century (with one or two late exceptions); but the philosophy of literature is currently experiencing a golden age, almost entirely unbeknownst to literature departments! The trouble is that academic disciplines are institutional in nature, and once an institution gloms on to something, it can really integrate it into its core identity and make it hard to prise back out again.

I blame deconstructionists who cut their teeth on Dickens. (kidding, somewhat--actually, on reading the previous post, I see we agree...!) Alfred North Whitehead has a lot to answer for as well, in my book. I was required to read a commentary on his work that looked as if blue pencil never touched paper. Going back to the original, I realized the writer was aping his style.

Oh, well....

I personally believe everyone should have to write for journalism for two years.

That will hone your text, trim out all your unnecessary adjectives and adverbs, and get you used to coming in on time, at length, with readable content.

(Well, it used to. I have to avert my 'editor's eye' when I see some of the "influencers' text" these days, and even the errors at the NYT and CNN are becoming more egregious: wordsmith detritus, dangling phrases, and run-ons prevail. But if you end up working with my once and former editor, those will all be beaten out of you with a thick bundle of blue lead pencils...)

M.

Quote from: mamselle on November 26, 2020, 02:10:22 PM
I blame deconstructionists who cut their teeth on Dickens. (kidding, somewhat--actually, on reading the previous post, I see we agree...!) Alfred North Whitehead has a lot to answer for as well, in my book. I was required to read a commentary on his work that looked as if blue pencil never touched paper. Going back to the original, I realized the writer was aping his style.

;)


(For the record, unlike some other analytic philosophers, I'm happy to grant that deconstructionism has some intellectual merits! But yeah, I think it had a pernicious influence.)

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on November 26, 2020, 02:06:28 PM
Yeah.

Some (but not all!) of it, I think, stems from the influence of bad philosophy, or of cursory engagement with philosophy, where the author associates difficulty with quality. A lot of people like to read philosophers outside the philosophy classroom, and that's a really good thing. I'm really glad that happens. But the subject is very hard, and depending on what you're reading, it might require you to be acquainted with a pretty extensive background of ideas (and to move through the text much more slowly than you are). And if you don't have that, and you're teaching it to people who don't have that, then there's not a lot left in there for you to glom on to, so you give it a very cursory reading, and your students get a very cursory understanding, and it becomes really easy to conflate difficulty of reading with quality of argumentation. And, to be clear, I don't think people are especially blameworthy for this. Interdisciplinarity is hard.

But it doesn't take very long for a process like that to produce a generation or two of poorly informed scholars who delight in nonsense, especially when you add in incentives to publish and to look like a 'genius' compared to everyone else (*cough* Jordan Petersen *cough*). And the problem, I think, is exacerbated by the fact that that's where the engagement with ideas in philosophy ends--you get some of the mid-20th century, maybe, and then nothing else. None of the responses, refinements, breakthroughs, etc.

Literary 'theory' is my usual go-to on this front (with my sincere appy polly loggies for the ruffled feathers!). Philosophy has had a very skewed influence there, and it's an influence that seems to have mostly ended in the middle of the twentieth century (with one or two late exceptions); but the philosophy of literature is currently experiencing a golden age, almost entirely unbeknownst to literature departments! The trouble is that academic disciplines are institutional in nature, and once an institution gloms on to something, it can really integrate it into its core identity and make it hard to prise back out again.

I mostly agree with you about the origin of the conflation between quality with difficulty. But whenever I've looked at texts in philosophy I've also noticed that they don't make things any easier on themselves because they delight in doing really tortured turns of phrase that do not have any meaning, and seem to be shoehorned into the text solely for the purpose of using a turn of phrase. Like 'This not only a classical problem, but in fact problematizes classification' or 'The origin of nature is also naturally original'. I've made up these examples, but they represent a really tiresome stylistic habit that I only see in philosophy. Yes, very cute, you've kept the same roots but swapped their order and part of speech. But it doesn't mean anything!

Does this show up anywhere besides philosophy?

Quote from: ergative on November 27, 2020, 01:27:03 AM

I mostly agree with you about the origin of the conflation between quality with difficulty. But whenever I've looked at texts in philosophy I've also noticed that they don't make things any easier on themselves ...

The language appears to make it very difficult for the philosophers to communicate. Some years ago, the Berkeley philospher, John Searle, won some big prize. I was curious what his contribution had been to philosophy, so I went to Wikipedia. There one can read that "Searle's early work on speech acts, influenced by J. L. Austin and Ludwig Wittgenstein, helped establish his reputation. His notable concepts include the "Chinese room" argument against "strong" artificial intelligence."

I felt no more informed than when I arrived. The definitions of speech acts, Chinese rooms and Strong AI were no more informative.

Could the wiki editors perhaps write a few sentences to help out the educated non-philosopher who just wants the gist of this intellectual contribution? The Nobel committee seems to manage that for some pretty abstruse advances in other fields, so I know it can be done.

So I checked out the Talk page (this old version (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Searle&oldid=494031056) since most has been archived since). Page after page of argument about every sentence, with the editors completely speaking past each other and none heading in the direction of comprehension. I think of that discussion as a good record of the communications morass in which they find themselves. Unfortunately, that morass dooms them to cultural oblivion regardless the profundity of their thoughts.

All this makes my thankful to be in a science field the prizes clarity and concision of writing. Having strict word/page limits for papers and grants helps I think, as does the explicit aim of clearly articulating the basis for your hypotheses based on past research, and communicating what you did and found in such a way that others in the field can replicate and extend it (that is, the idea that science should be cumulative). Major problems with clarity do not make it through peer review. By the time they are published, our papers may be dry, but they are generally clear.

Lack of clarity (in thinking and writing), poor organization, and over-wordiness are problems we try to tackle explicitly at the undergraduate and graduate level. Good, clear, writing can certainly be taught, if a field is motivated to do so.

Quote from: Puget on November 27, 2020, 07:12:47 AM
All this makes my thankful to be in a science field the prizes clarity and concision of writing. Having strict word/page limits for papers and grants helps I think, as does the explicit aim of clearly articulating the basis for your hypotheses based on past research, and communicating what you did and found in such a way that others in the field can replicate and extend it (that is, the idea that science should be cumulative). Major problems with clarity do not make it through peer review. By the time they are published, our papers may be dry, but they are generally clear.

Lack of clarity (in thinking and writing), poor organization, and over-wordiness are problems we try to tackle explicitly at the undergraduate and graduate level. Good, clear, writing can certainly be taught, if a field is motivated to do so.

There's the problem. You expect some sort of objective analysis is possible, so that others can replicate your findings. The reason a lot of the bad writing exists is to avoid the possibility of anyone having the chance to refute any of it. If they don't understand it, they can't challenge it.

I agree, yes. It is awful writing that passes for erudition and is widely used and praised by scholars in certain sub-sub fields across the disciplines. I don't know about Africana Studies. A former colleague friend writes like this and is proudly published. A tiny minority of scholars in a small niche understand and applaud this kind of work. He said he didn't care if he was understood, and couldn't write any other way. (Baffling!)
     Some of it sounds nonsensical to me and I studied impenetrable obscure material. If you are not in the "inside club" it may sound like doublespeak, and you would need a special glossary/dictionary for it. One of my students once said, "he writes like he is afraid of being understood." And you can't fault the translation either.
My professors told that the subject is so deep and profound that it cannot be made clear.

Quote from: Myword on November 27, 2020, 08:16:03 AM

I agree, yes. It is awful writing that passes for erudition and is widely used and praised by scholars in certain sub-sub fields across the disciplines. I don't know about Africana Studies. A former colleague friend writes like this and is proudly published. A tiny minority of scholars in a small niche understand and applaud this kind of work. He said he didn't care if he was understood, and couldn't write any other way. (Baffling!)
     Some of it sounds nonsensical to me and I studied impenetrable obscure material. If you are not in the "inside club" it may sound like doublespeak, and you would need a special glossary/dictionary for it. One of my students once said, "he writes like he is afraid of being understood." And you can't fault the translation either.
My professors told that the subject is so deep and profound that it cannot be made clear.

So is a pile of manure.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 27, 2020, 07:46:17 AM

Quote from: Puget on November 27, 2020, 07:12:47 AM
All this makes my thankful to be in a science field the prizes clarity and concision of writing. Having strict word/page limits for papers and grants helps I think, as does the explicit aim of clearly articulating the basis for your hypotheses based on past research, and communicating what you did and found in such a way that others in the field can replicate and extend it (that is, the idea that science should be cumulative). Major problems with clarity do not make it through peer review. By the time they are published, our papers may be dry, but they are generally clear.

Lack of clarity (in thinking and writing), poor organization, and over-wordiness are problems we try to tackle explicitly at the undergraduate and graduate level. Good, clear, writing can certainly be taught, if a field is motivated to do so.

There's the problem. You expect some sort of objective analysis is possible, so that others can replicate your findings. The reason a lot of the bad writing exists is to avoid the possibility of anyone having the chance to refute any of it. If they don't understand it, they can't challenge it.

The idea applies in the humanities in a modified form. I tell students that I know I'm reading a good undergrad paper when I start arguing with the author as I read it. If you've got me muttering "well, actually couldn't that also mean x" or "but, really, if you look at what z says, couldn't you interpret it as meaning..." it means that you're actually making an argument, using evidence to support it and the whole thing is compelling enough to engage me.

Bad papers never get there. There's usually nothing to disagree with. 

Some interesting examples of the problem with journals that encourage this kind of bad writing.

The Sokal affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair)

The Grievance studies affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair)

I have a friend who does this in their facebook posts.  I struggle to understand what they are saying half the time...

I always assumed that perhaps this is just how philosophy people write (I am in STEM), but you have given me hope that perhaps it is just him and not the whole field...

Quote from: Caracal on November 27, 2020, 08:32:50 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 27, 2020, 07:46:17 AM

Quote from: Puget on November 27, 2020, 07:12:47 AM
All this makes my thankful to be in a science field the prizes clarity and concision of writing. Having strict word/page limits for papers and grants helps I think, as does the explicit aim of clearly articulating the basis for your hypotheses based on past research, and communicating what you did and found in such a way that others in the field can replicate and extend it (that is, the idea that science should be cumulative). Major problems with clarity do not make it through peer review. By the time they are published, our papers may be dry, but they are generally clear.

Lack of clarity (in thinking and writing), poor organization, and over-wordiness are problems we try to tackle explicitly at the undergraduate and graduate level. Good, clear, writing can certainly be taught, if a field is motivated to do so.

There's the problem. You expect some sort of objective analysis is possible, so that others can replicate your findings. The reason a lot of the bad writing exists is to avoid the possibility of anyone having the chance to refute any of it. If they don't understand it, they can't challenge it.

The idea applies in the humanities in a modified form. I tell students that I know I'm reading a good undergrad paper when I start arguing with the author as I read it. If you've got me muttering "well, actually couldn't that also mean x" or "but, really, if you look at what z says, couldn't you interpret it as meaning..." it means that you're actually making an argument, using evidence to support it and the whole thing is compelling enough to engage me.

Bad papers never get there. There's usually nothing to disagree with.

See, the difference is in the sciences the authors are supposed to raise those possibilities themselves-- if the reader can think of a different plausible explanation for the findings, the authors should also be including it in their discussion section, and pointing out ways for future research to test these alternative possible explanations. They should also be pointing out the limitations of their work (there is nearly always a "limitations and future directions" section of the discussion section). If the authors have not done so, the peer reviewers most definitely will contribute a long list for them to incorporate ;)

Quote from: ergative on November 27, 2020, 01:27:03 AM

I mostly agree with you about the origin of the conflation between quality with difficulty. But whenever I've looked at texts in philosophy I've also noticed that they don't make things any easier on themselves because they delight in doing really tortured turns of phrase that do not have any meaning, and seem to be shoehorned into the text solely for the purpose of using a turn of phrase. Like 'This not only a classical problem, but in fact problematizes classification' or 'The origin of nature is also naturally original'. I've made up these examples, but they represent a really tiresome stylistic habit that I only see in philosophy. Yes, very cute, you've kept the same roots but swapped their order and part of speech. But it doesn't mean anything!

Does this show up anywhere besides philosophy?

Yeah... a lot depends on where in philosophy you're looking. There are several distinct, very different ways of doing it, each with their own preferred style of communication. And while work in the 'analytic' tradition is, on the whole, clearer and easier to follow (because clarity of exposition is explicitly prized), it also has its excesses and its own particular way of being obscure (e.g. the so-called Rutgers-MIT style which needlessly emphasizes logical formalism).

Quote from: Hibush on November 27, 2020, 06:46:32 AM

The language appears to make it very difficult for the philosophers to communicate. Some years ago, the Berkeley philospher, John Searle, won some big prize. I was curious what his contribution had been to philosophy, so I went to Wikipedia. There one can read that "Searle's early work on speech acts, influenced by J. L. Austin and Ludwig Wittgenstein, helped establish his reputation. His notable concepts include the "Chinese room" argument against "strong" artificial intelligence."

I felt no more informed than when I arrived. The definitions of speech acts, Chinese rooms and Strong AI were no more informative.

Could the wiki editors perhaps write a few sentences to help out the educated non-philosopher who just wants the gist of this intellectual contribution? The Nobel committee seems to manage that for some pretty abstruse advances in other fields, so I know it can be done.

So I checked out the Talk page (this old version (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Searle&oldid=494031056) since most has been archived since). Page after page of argument about every sentence, with the editors completely speaking past each other and none heading in the direction of comprehension. I think of that discussion as a good record of the communications morass in which they find themselves. Unfortunately, that morass dooms them to cultural oblivion regardless the profundity of their thoughts.

Yeah, but those are problems with Wikipedia rather than Searle's prose. If you want a better idea of how philosophers explain these things, check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/index.html) instead; the entries there, at least, are guaranteed to be written by actual philosophy PhDs. (The quality is variable, of course, and it's written as an encyclopedia rather than as an article presenting original research, but it's at least more representative.) Here's the speech act entry (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/), for example, and here's the Chinese room entry (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/).

That said, Searle's work is kind of shit anyway. It's the kind of stuff you could get away with in the hyper-uncompetitive world of the '60s, '70s, and '80s, but which frankly doesn't cut a lot of mustard today. It's okay, but I wouldn't write home about it if I saw it in print today. (Note: that's just me, though. Other opinions are definitely available.) Also, he's a serial sexual harasser and a pretty racist and awful landlord. So, fuck him.

You've probably already poked around and gotten these answers, but just in case:

The Chinese Room: This is a thought-experiment designed to elicit the intuition that there's a difference between understanding something and spitting out the right answers. So: an input-output device can perform really complex operations that make it seem like it 'knows' what it's doing, when it fact it doesn't. It just breaks the task up into a series of steps, and doesn't have any kind of special overall insight into the thing. So the idea was, if you're a native English speaker with no knowledge of Chinese, but you're given a sufficiently detailed set of instructions, you can translate English sentences into Chinese with perfect accuracy. But you still don't know Chinese.

Strong AI: The idea is just that a sufficiently sophisticated computer really does understand how to play Chess, the natural languages it's been programmed to use, etc. Weak AI, by contrast, just says that computers mimic these human capacities, but don't actually have them.

Speech acts: the kinds of tasks you perform by using language. In formulating a request like 'please pass the salt', for example, you're both telling someone you want salt, and also asking them to do something. Or, you know: when the officiant says 'I now pronounce you husband and wife' (or whatever they actually say; i don't know), they're not just saying things, they're also doing things with those words (viz., marrying people). So: speech acts are linguistic actions. Speech act theory gets pretty complicated pretty quickly, but Searle's contributions are mostly refinements of work by Austin and Grice.

Quote from: Kron3007 on November 27, 2020, 09:23:36 AM
I have a friend who does this in their facebook posts.  I struggle to understand what they are saying half the time...

I always assumed that perhaps this is just how philosophy people write (I am in STEM), but you have given me hope that perhaps it is just him and not the whole field...

Definitely not! All people know about philosophy tends to concern the historical 'greats', and most of them are pretty bad writers, especially those from the 20th century, some of whom were explicitly trying to be vague or modelling themselves on Hegel and the German Idealists. Contemporary analytic philosophy is not at all like that (and, in fairness, history of philosophy usually isn't, either, although it has different goal and guiding principles; continental philosophy has strands which are more or less committed to obscurity and forcing the reader to work hard, largely as a result of where they're located in the discourse). You could check out work by contemporary people (not the old people, but middle-aged or younger). Jason Stanley writes a fair bit of public philosophy, for example. I'm out in the world, so I don't really have the time to cast around, but if you're interested I can find you some examples.

For some of the progenitors of the contemporary style, you could have a gander at David Lewis (https://www.quia.com/files/quia/users/dring/Mad-Pain-and-Martian-Pain_Full.pdf) or Gilbert Ryle (https://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/maydede/mind/Ryle_DescartesMyth.pdf) (those are links to actual articles). Those are from ages and ages ago, so they're not really 'contemporary' any more, but they're by philosophers widely recognized as excellent stylists!

Quote from: Myword on November 27, 2020, 08:16:03 AMMy professors told that the subject is so deep and profound that it cannot be made clear.

That BS, I subscribe to the viewpoint that numerous physicists and mathematicians have expressed, that if you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't really understand it.

Quote from: Puget on November 27, 2020, 09:49:41 AM

Quote from: Caracal on November 27, 2020, 08:32:50 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 27, 2020, 07:46:17 AM

Quote from: Puget on November 27, 2020, 07:12:47 AM
All this makes my thankful to be in a science field the prizes clarity and concision of writing. Having strict word/page limits for papers and grants helps I think, as does the explicit aim of clearly articulating the basis for your hypotheses based on past research, and communicating what you did and found in such a way that others in the field can replicate and extend it (that is, the idea that science should be cumulative). Major problems with clarity do not make it through peer review. By the time they are published, our papers may be dry, but they are generally clear.

Lack of clarity (in thinking and writing), poor organization, and over-wordiness are problems we try to tackle explicitly at the undergraduate and graduate level. Good, clear, writing can certainly be taught, if a field is motivated to do so.

There's the problem. You expect some sort of objective analysis is possible, so that others can replicate your findings. The reason a lot of the bad writing exists is to avoid the possibility of anyone having the chance to refute any of it. If they don't understand it, they can't challenge it.

The idea applies in the humanities in a modified form. I tell students that I know I'm reading a good undergrad paper when I start arguing with the author as I read it. If you've got me muttering "well, actually couldn't that also mean x" or "but, really, if you look at what z says, couldn't you interpret it as meaning..." it means that you're actually making an argument, using evidence to support it and the whole thing is compelling enough to engage me.

Bad papers never get there. There's usually nothing to disagree with.

See, the difference is in the sciences the authors are supposed to raise those possibilities themselves-- if the reader can think of a different plausible explanation for the findings, the authors should also be including it in their discussion section, and pointing out ways for future research to test these alternative possible explanations. They should also be pointing out the limitations of their work (there is nearly always a "limitations and future directions" section of the discussion section). If the authors have not done so, the peer reviewers most definitely will contribute a long list for them to incorporate ;)

Yes. In my field it's very common in the discussions section for a writer to address alternative explanations, often with a footnote or even an explicit statement of the variety, 'An anonymous reviewer suggested that . . .' or 'I am grateful to a referee for this suggestion.'

Quote from: mleok on November 27, 2020, 07:00:31 PM

Quote from: Myword on November 27, 2020, 08:16:03 AMMy professors told that the subject is so deep and profound that it cannot be made clear.

That BS, I subscribe to the viewpoint that numerous physicists and mathematicians have expressed, that if you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't really understand it.

Has that viewpoint been expressed by any string theorists?

Quote from: ergative on November 28, 2020, 12:55:40 AM

See, the difference is in the sciences the authors are supposed to raise those possibilities themselves-- if the reader can think of a different plausible explanation for the findings, the authors should also be including it in their discussion section, and pointing out ways for future research to test these alternative possible explanations. They should also be pointing out the limitations of their work (there is nearly always a "limitations and future directions" section of the discussion section). If the authors have not done so, the peer reviewers most definitely will contribute a long list for them to incorporate ;)

Yes. In my field it's very common in the discussions section for a writer to address alternative explanations, often with a footnote or even an explicit statement of the variety, 'An anonymous reviewer suggested that . . .' or 'I am grateful to a referee for this suggestion.'
[/quote]

Yes, my field too. I was talking about standard undergrad papers-in a thesis-never mind a book, you'd want a student to learn how to see and address contrary evidence.

Depending on how strong the point is and its relevance, it is often a good idea to bring it up in the text too. Its a basic principle of good argument that you need to address counterarguments and explain why you think your interpretation makes more sense. Of course, just like in science, that doesn't always prevent someone from seeing something the author didn't. That's sort of the point, after all. It would be embarrassing to miss something painfully obvious or that you would have picked up on if you'd read more in the field, but often it is just what happens when people with different ideas and knowledge read something.

Fortunately I'm in a branch of the social sciences that discourages incoherent writing, but certainly I've read my share of it as a grad student and as a reviewer. Authors should, at the very least, start with a simple explanation of the thesis before they dive into the dense and difficult prose. I'd also love for more reviewers to demand clarity from authors.

Quote from: Hibush on November 28, 2020, 07:00:14 AM

Quote from: mleok on November 27, 2020, 07:00:31 PM

Quote from: Myword on November 27, 2020, 08:16:03 AMMy professors told that the subject is so deep and profound that it cannot be made clear.

That BS, I subscribe to the viewpoint that numerous physicists and mathematicians have expressed, that if you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't really understand it.

Has that viewpoint been expressed by any string theorists?

Haha, that's a field which I think exemplifies the wisdom of that statement...

Quote from: ergative on November 27, 2020, 01:27:03 AM

I mostly agree with you about the origin of the conflation between quality with difficulty. But whenever I've looked at texts in philosophy I've also noticed that they don't make things any easier on themselves because they delight in doing really tortured turns of phrase that do not have any meaning, and seem to be shoehorned into the text solely for the purpose of using a turn of phrase. Like 'This not only a classical problem, but in fact problematizes classification' or 'The origin of nature is also naturally original'. I've made up these examples, but they represent a really tiresome stylistic habit that I only see in philosophy. Yes, very cute, you've kept the same roots but swapped their order and part of speech. But it doesn't mean anything!

I'm in philosophy, and I can honestly say that I have never seen that kind of thing in any philosophy I have read and I have certainly never written anything like it.  I'm not well versed in contemporary continental philosophy, however, so perhaps it happens there.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 27, 2020, 09:05:05 AM
Some interesting examples of the problem with journals that encourage this kind of bad writing.

The Sokal affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair)

The Grievance studies affair (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair)

I have ambivalent feelings about the Sokal and Grievance Affair scandals. Detractors often point to both as evidence that the more "lefty" circles of humanities/social science are bullshit, but the closer you look at the details the less impressive both incidents appear. Like with the Grievance Studies Affair, I believe only a small portion of the submissions were accepted, and even smaller portion were accepted into actual journals (there was only one on the list that I remember being a legit journal). Furthermore, I don't think peer review is built to identify hoax papers as it's presumed that if a researcher says they did xyz or found abc data, they actually did so. Fabrication usually has a way of coming out one way or another.

That said, I appreciate the spirit and sentiment of the projects. I read a few of the proposed papers and had a good laugh.

(Most of this whole thread is written in bad faith.)

Quote from: aginghipster on November 28, 2020, 04:14:22 PM
(Most of this whole thread is written in bad faith.)

how so

Bad writing, full of intentional obfuscations and/or unintentional ignorance, is bad, and usually is used to cover up for the fact that  the author has nothing much to say.   But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, and try to make serious scholarly writing look like stuff from a tabloid newspaper.   Adverbs and adjectives, properly used, add clarity, nuance, etc., as do more complex sentence structure.   Of course, it is true that classicists often do end up writing like Latin or Greek.

Quote from: kaysixteen on November 28, 2020, 09:09:59 PM
Bad writing, full of intentional obfuscations and/or unintentional ignorance, is bad, and usually is used to cover up for the fact that  the author has nothing much to say.   But let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, and try to make serious scholarly writing look like stuff from a tabloid newspaper.   Adverbs and adjectives, properly used, add clarity, nuance, etc., as do more complex sentence structure.   Of course, it is true that classicists often do end up writing like Latin or Greek.

Yes, I agree. The problem (from a teaching perspective, at least) is that the opaque and transparent varieties of academic writing look very similar to students who are still learning the actual content beneath it. And so the writing they see is almost universally obscure, either because the writing is bad, or because, even if the writing is good, the content is hard. So there's this constant reinforcement that academic=obscure. And that stratum of experience underlies a lot of current academics' formative years in their fields.

Quote from: hazeus on November 28, 2020, 05:49:22 PM

Quote from: aginghipster on November 28, 2020, 04:14:22 PM
(Most of this whole thread is written in bad faith.)

how so

Indeed.  We're not unsympathetic to the argument, but you'll need to put some flesh on those bones.  Don't just make an account to say something cryptic.  Stay and insult us properly.

Quote from: Hibush on November 28, 2020, 07:00:14 AM

Quote from: mleok on November 27, 2020, 07:00:31 PM

Quote from: Myword on November 27, 2020, 08:16:03 AMMy professors told that the subject is so deep and profound that it cannot be made clear.

That BS, I subscribe to the viewpoint that numerous physicists and mathematicians have expressed, that if you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't really understand it.

Has that viewpoint been expressed by any string theorists?

Well, that's a field that assumes as prettt much a cornerstone of the field the existence of extra dimensions there is zero evidence for...

Quote from: Stockmann on November 29, 2020, 08:23:01 AM

Quote from: Hibush on November 28, 2020, 07:00:14 AM

Quote from: mleok on November 27, 2020, 07:00:31 PM

Quote from: Myword on November 27, 2020, 08:16:03 AMMy professors told that the subject is so deep and profound that it cannot be made clear.

That BS, I subscribe to the viewpoint that numerous physicists and mathematicians have expressed, that if you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't really understand it.

Has that viewpoint been expressed by any string theorists?

Well, that's a field that assumes as prettt much a cornerstone of the field the existence of extra dimensions there is zero evidence for...

To be fair, it's a bit like "imaginary" (a.k.a. complex) numbers. The math of these "non-existent" numbers turns out to be useful in electronics. So the higher dimensions in string theory don't have to be "real" as long as the math that results is actually useful for what happens in the "real" world.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 29, 2020, 11:47:04 AM

Quote from: Stockmann on November 29, 2020, 08:23:01 AM

Quote from: Hibush on November 28, 2020, 07:00:14 AM

Quote from: mleok on November 27, 2020, 07:00:31 PM

Quote from: Myword on November 27, 2020, 08:16:03 AMMy professors told that the subject is so deep and profound that it cannot be made clear.

That BS, I subscribe to the viewpoint that numerous physicists and mathematicians have expressed, that if you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't really understand it.

Has that viewpoint been expressed by any string theorists?

Well, that's a field that assumes as prettt much a cornerstone of the field the existence of extra dimensions there is zero evidence for...

To be fair, it's a bit like "imaginary" (a.k.a. complex) numbers. The math of these "non-existent" numbers turns out to be useful in electronics. So the higher dimensions in string theory don't have to be "real" as long as the math that results is actually useful for what happens in the "real" world.

I'm a bit out of my depth here, but are you sure that these two mathematical concepts are the same? Because imaginary numbers fall out of real-world phenomena very straightforwardly: parabolas, for example, can be seen every time you throw an object, and with certain types of parabolas the quadratic formula--which can be directly derived by completing the square--gives you imaginary numbers without hiccupping, which then play nice with all sorts of other mathematical manipulations. Is there a similarly straightforward link supporting the existence of these string theory higher dimensions?

Quote from: ergative on November 30, 2020, 12:45:31 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 29, 2020, 11:47:04 AM

Quote from: Stockmann on November 29, 2020, 08:23:01 AM

Quote from: Hibush on November 28, 2020, 07:00:14 AM

Quote from: mleok on November 27, 2020, 07:00:31 PM

Quote from: Myword on November 27, 2020, 08:16:03 AMMy professors told that the subject is so deep and profound that it cannot be made clear.

That BS, I subscribe to the viewpoint that numerous physicists and mathematicians have expressed, that if you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't really understand it.

Has that viewpoint been expressed by any string theorists?

Well, that's a field that assumes as prettt much a cornerstone of the field the existence of extra dimensions there is zero evidence for...

To be fair, it's a bit like "imaginary" (a.k.a. complex) numbers. The math of these "non-existent" numbers turns out to be useful in electronics. So the higher dimensions in string theory don't have to be "real" as long as the math that results is actually useful for what happens in the "real" world.

I'm a bit out of my depth here, but are you sure that these two mathematical concepts are the same? Because imaginary numbers fall out of real-world phenomena very straightforwardly: parabolas, for example, can be seen every time you throw an object, and with certain types of parabolas the quadratic formula--which can be directly derived by completing the square--gives you imaginary numbers without hiccupping, which then play nice with all sorts of other mathematical manipulations. Is there a similarly straightforward link supporting the existence of these string theory higher dimensions?

I'm far from an expert on string theory, but my understanding is that the equations that lead to it only have solutions in higher numbers of dimensions. So in a manner similar to complex numbers, as long as the results predicted in "real" space match what is actually observed, then the theory (a.k.a. the math) is useful even if the interpretations are bizarre (and untestable).

Quote from: Hibush on November 28, 2020, 07:00:14 AM

Quote from: mleok on November 27, 2020, 07:00:31 PM

Quote from: Myword on November 27, 2020, 08:16:03 AMMy professors told that the subject is so deep and profound that it cannot be made clear.

That BS, I subscribe to the viewpoint that numerous physicists and mathematicians have expressed, that if you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't really understand it.

Has that viewpoint been expressed by any string theorists?

There is actually a pretty good textbook on string theory geared toward the advanced undergrad level. I am not knowledgeable enough to know how accurate it is, but it does offer relatively simple descriptions for what are often considered intimidating concepts.

TBH, I think if you can explain an advanced math or physics concept in simple terms you are unlikely to be giving a completely accurate airtight description. Imaginary numbers are a good example--try passing off one of your explanations to a philosopher and report back.

I can't speak for the field the OP is referring to, but I appreciate both sides of the debate on reliance on jargon.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 30, 2020, 04:56:58 AM

Quote from: ergative on November 30, 2020, 12:45:31 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 29, 2020, 11:47:04 AM

Quote from: Stockmann on November 29, 2020, 08:23:01 AM

Quote from: Hibush on November 28, 2020, 07:00:14 AM

Quote from: mleok on November 27, 2020, 07:00:31 PM

Quote from: Myword on November 27, 2020, 08:16:03 AMMy professors told that the subject is so deep and profound that it cannot be made clear.

That BS, I subscribe to the viewpoint that numerous physicists and mathematicians have expressed, that if you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't really understand it.

Has that viewpoint been expressed by any string theorists?

Well, that's a field that assumes as prettt much a cornerstone of the field the existence of extra dimensions there is zero evidence for...

To be fair, it's a bit like "imaginary" (a.k.a. complex) numbers. The math of these "non-existent" numbers turns out to be useful in electronics. So the higher dimensions in string theory don't have to be "real" as long as the math that results is actually useful for what happens in the "real" world.

I'm a bit out of my depth here, but are you sure that these two mathematical concepts are the same? Because imaginary numbers fall out of real-world phenomena very straightforwardly: parabolas, for example, can be seen every time you throw an object, and with certain types of parabolas the quadratic formula--which can be directly derived by completing the square--gives you imaginary numbers without hiccupping, which then play nice with all sorts of other mathematical manipulations. Is there a similarly straightforward link supporting the existence of these string theory higher dimensions?

I'm far from an expert on string theory, but my understanding is that the equations that lead to it only have solutions in higher numbers of dimensions. So in a manner similar to complex numbers, as long as the results predicted in "real" space match what is actually observed, then the theory (a.k.a. the math) is useful even if the interpretations are bizarre (and untestable).

Huh! Astronomy is so cool.

Quote from: ergative on November 27, 2020, 01:27:03 AM
Does this show up anywhere besides philosophy?

It's been known to crop up in theology. 

The Word became flesh--and through the efforts of the theologians became words again.

Quote from: apl68 on December 01, 2020, 07:48:22 AM

Quote from: ergative on November 27, 2020, 01:27:03 AM
Does this show up anywhere besides philosophy?

It's been known to crop up in theology. 

The Word became flesh--and through the efforts of the theologians became words again.

Surely in any field where Derrida has been an influential thinker.

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 30, 2020, 04:56:58 AM

Quote from: ergative on November 30, 2020, 12:45:31 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on November 29, 2020, 11:47:04 AM

Quote from: Stockmann on November 29, 2020, 08:23:01 AM

Quote from: Hibush on November 28, 2020, 07:00:14 AM

Quote from: mleok on November 27, 2020, 07:00:31 PM

Quote from: Myword on November 27, 2020, 08:16:03 AMMy professors told that the subject is so deep and profound that it cannot be made clear.

That BS, I subscribe to the viewpoint that numerous physicists and mathematicians have expressed, that if you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't really understand it.

Has that viewpoint been expressed by any string theorists?

Well, that's a field that assumes as prettt much a cornerstone of the field the existence of extra dimensions there is zero evidence for...

To be fair, it's a bit like "imaginary" (a.k.a. complex) numbers. The math of these "non-existent" numbers turns out to be useful in electronics. So the higher dimensions in string theory don't have to be "real" as long as the math that results is actually useful for what happens in the "real" world.

I'm a bit out of my depth here, but are you sure that these two mathematical concepts are the same? Because imaginary numbers fall out of real-world phenomena very straightforwardly: parabolas, for example, can be seen every time you throw an object, and with certain types of parabolas the quadratic formula--which can be directly derived by completing the square--gives you imaginary numbers without hiccupping, which then play nice with all sorts of other mathematical manipulations. Is there a similarly straightforward link supporting the existence of these string theory higher dimensions?

I'm far from an expert on string theory, but my understanding is that the equations that lead to it only have solutions in higher numbers of dimensions. So in a manner similar to complex numbers, as long as the results predicted in "real" space match what is actually observed, then the theory (a.k.a. the math) is useful even if the interpretations are bizarre (and untestable).

My (non-expert) understanding is that the theory does require the extra dimensions to have an actual physical existence (even if untestable in practice) and they're assumed to be hidden away or curled up somehow - my understanding is that if they don't exist then string theory (all versions of it) is simply wrong. Unlike using complex numbers in all sorts of applications, like quantum physics, which does not require imaginary numbers to be observable even in principle, i.e. they are not required or assumed to exist as anything other than mathematical abstractions.

Just because it doesn't exist as postulated in theory, that doesn't mean it's not useful for applied purposes. Just think of Newtonian mechanics.

Today, I worked on manuscript revisions. One reviewer complained our language was "too casual" and "not academic enough." I guess we need to make our language more confusing to the reader! Maybe I should cite this thread in my response to reviewer comments. Just kidding...

Quote from: darkstarrynight on December 01, 2020, 07:57:34 PM
Today, I worked on manuscript revisions. One reviewer complained our language was "too casual" and "not academic enough." I guess we need to make our language more confusing to the reader! Maybe I should cite this thread in my response to reviewer comments. Just kidding...

I got that too, once! I was talking about some effects not emerging in an experiment as a 'dismal failure to improve model fit' and a 'resounding failure', and the reviewer said 'I would avoid words such as  "dismally" and "resoundingly" for a scientific publication'. He signed his name, however, and I have read his papers in which he discusses properties such as 'wiggliness' of lines in GAMM models, so I don't really see that he has much of a leg to stand on in objecting to non-scientific language.

Also, one of the very seminal papers in my subfield has the phrase, 'Following this logic to its dreary conclusion, we see that . . .' and it gave me such joy to read it.

So phooey on you, stuffed-shirt hypocrite reviewers!

Quote from: ergative on December 02, 2020, 12:28:27 AM

Quote from: darkstarrynight on December 01, 2020, 07:57:34 PM
Today, I worked on manuscript revisions. One reviewer complained our language was "too casual" and "not academic enough." I guess we need to make our language more confusing to the reader! Maybe I should cite this thread in my response to reviewer comments. Just kidding...

I got that too, once! I was talking about some effects not emerging in an experiment as a 'dismal failure to improve model fit' and a 'resounding failure', and the reviewer said 'I would avoid words such as  "dismally" and "resoundingly" for a scientific publication'. He signed his name, however, and I have read his papers in which he discusses properties such as 'wiggliness' of lines in GAMM models, so I don't really see that he has much of a leg to stand on in objecting to non-scientific language.

Also, one of the very seminal papers in my subfield has the phrase, 'Following this logic to its dreary conclusion, we see that . . .' and it gave me such joy to read it.

So phooey on you, stuffed-shirt hypocrite reviewers!

.

Lame.  I enjoy a more human element to scientific writing and often try to slip a couple puns past the goalie.

This is one of the things I like about a lot of Darwin's work.  It is always written in a more personal style.  I also find that older work, with the human element, is much better at admitting shortcomings/limitations of the experiment.  These days, I find that if you highlight any weakness in your paper the reviewers jump on it and we are encouraging people to gloss over and hide them. 

It is a little ironic that people will criticize personal language as not scientific ehen that was the norm for people like Darwin.

Although my research articles are stodgier than my "popular" book(s),
I've grown to allow for a bit of humanity (humor?) in my research writing.

Quote from: darkstarrynight on December 01, 2020, 07:57:34 PM
Today, I worked on manuscript revisions. One reviewer complained our language was "too casual" and "not academic enough." I guess we need to make our language more confusing to the reader! Maybe I should cite this thread in my response to reviewer comments. Just kidding...

Something like that happened to me in one of my MLS classes.  When I was in a PhD program in history, we were told to avoid "clanking machinery" prose--stuff like beginning a paper with "This paper will demonstrate..." and all the passive-voice phrasing seen in so much academic prose.  When I went to library school, I was essentially told to make my machinery clank.  So I did.

That's one thing I've always appreciated about academic history.  Although some historians are capable of producing prose as deadly as you'll see anywhere, most of them seem to understand that even academic history is still ultimately about telling a story.

Academic writing is and has been notoriously dull, boring, to the educated readers and professionals. If it is written in a less technical language, it is viewed as unrigorous, simplified
and lower reputation, as if the writer is unprofessional.
Sometimes writing clearly does not pay off. Many authors I read use humorous or pop culture examples that are going too far the other way. They do not help the arguments and look frivolous. I commented on this on another post and have criticized it in a paper. One answer is to use the footnotes or endnotes for this. I suppose if the paper is strong and tightly written,an occasional quip or casual aside does not matter.

Quote from: apl68 on December 02, 2020, 06:41:58 AM
Something like that happened to me in one of my MLS classes.  When I was in a PhD program in history, we were told to avoid "clanking machinery" prose--stuff like beginning a paper with "This paper will demonstrate..." and all the passive-voice phrasing seen in so much academic prose.  When I went to library school, I was essentially told to make my machinery clank.  So I did.

I find that some clanking machinery is extremely useful.
"This paper will demonstrate..." (and its equivalents)
1) forces writer to actually formulate what the article is about
2) helps reader during quick scan of the article to find relevant segment (as opposed to deciphering objective from multiple paragraphs of text)

I agree Durch. I just feel that I can attain these goals without always seeming like a robot wrote my paper for me.

Quote from: Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert on December 02, 2020, 07:42:33 AM

Quote from: apl68 on December 02, 2020, 06:41:58 AM
Something like that happened to me in one of my MLS classes.  When I was in a PhD program in history, we were told to avoid "clanking machinery" prose--stuff like beginning a paper with "This paper will demonstrate..." and all the passive-voice phrasing seen in so much academic prose.  When I went to library school, I was essentially told to make my machinery clank.  So I did.

I find that some clanking machinery is extremely useful.
"This paper will demonstrate..." (and its equivalents)
1) forces writer to actually formulate what the article is about
2) helps reader during quick scan of the article to find relevant segment (as opposed to deciphering objective from multiple paragraphs of text)

Sure, but you can still do that in a more engaging way. "I will argue" is much better than "this paper will demonstrate." However, audience and conventions do matter. Historians think of themselves as engaging with a larger audience-even when they clearly aren't. In other fields, the assumption is that you are just talking to people in the field and that you aren't trying to make your prose particularly interesting or engaging.

That's sort of the problem with all of these discussions of jargon. When I occasionally read a STEM paper, I often find there are lots of terms I don't fully understand and things presented in language I don't find particularly clear. That isn't the fault of the authors-I'm reading something that is intended for a specialized audience that I'm not part of.

I'd agree that the important question is whether the use of specialized terms is actually helpful in communicating with others in the field about things of interest or if it is just a way of making the author feel important and obscuring the actual arguments.

Quote from: Caracal on December 02, 2020, 08:35:19 AM

Quote from: Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert on December 02, 2020, 07:42:33 AM

Quote from: apl68 on December 02, 2020, 06:41:58 AM
Something like that happened to me in one of my MLS classes.  When I was in a PhD program in history, we were told to avoid "clanking machinery" prose--stuff like beginning a paper with "This paper will demonstrate..." and all the passive-voice phrasing seen in so much academic prose.  When I went to library school, I was essentially told to make my machinery clank.  So I did.

I find that some clanking machinery is extremely useful.
"This paper will demonstrate..." (and its equivalents)
1) forces writer to actually formulate what the article is about
2) helps reader during quick scan of the article to find relevant segment (as opposed to deciphering objective from multiple paragraphs of text)

Sure, but you can still do that in a more engaging way. "I will argue" is much better than "this paper will demonstrate." However, audience and conventions do matter. Historians think of themselves as engaging with a larger audience-even when they clearly aren't. In other fields, the assumption is that you are just talking to people in the field and that you aren't trying to make your prose particularly interesting or engaging.

That's sort of the problem with all of these discussions of jargon. When I occasionally read a STEM paper, I often find there are lots of terms I don't fully understand and things presented in language I don't find particularly clear. That isn't the fault of the authors-I'm reading something that is intended for a specialized audience that I'm not part of.

I'd agree that the important question is whether the use of specialized terms is actually helpful in communicating with others in the field about things of interest or if it is just a way of making the author feel important and obscuring the actual arguments.

Yes, there are times that jargon is helpful or even necessary, but there are many other situations where simpler language could be used just as effectively and make the writing more accessible.  In general I think it is best to use plain language and avoid specialized terms when possible.  This is especially true in many STEM fields where we are trying to communicate globally, often with people operating in a second (or third...) language.  There is no need to make the text more confusing than necessary.

I would also argue that these so called conventions are only there if we (as scientists) agree with them.  For example, I was always taught to write in third person for scientific manuscripts, but this is shifting.  Some of the biggest journals even require the use of first person now.  So, these conventions that force us to speak in the passive voice and avoid any sense of humanity are not cast in stone and change over time.  As I mentioned, much of Darwin's writings are written in a very personal manner that make them quite enjoyable to read.

     

Quote from: Kron3007 on December 02, 2020, 10:29:42 AM
I would also argue that these so called conventions are only there if we (as scientists) agree with them.  For example, I was always taught to write in third person for scientific manuscripts, but this is shifting.  Some of the biggest journals even require the use of first person now.  So, these conventions that force us to speak in the passive voice and avoid any sense of humanity are not cast in stone and change over time.  As I mentioned, much of Darwin's writings are written in a very personal manner that make them quite enjoyable to read.

Yes, we've mostly successfully made this shift in psychology. I still occasionally see "It was hypothesized that. . ." and always want to ask who's hypothesis was this, if not you, the authors'? Is there some mysterious force in the universe that produces hypotheses all on its own?

Quote from: Puget on December 02, 2020, 10:56:30 AM

Quote from: Kron3007 on December 02, 2020, 10:29:42 AM
I would also argue that these so called conventions are only there if we (as scientists) agree with them.  For example, I was always taught to write in third person for scientific manuscripts, but this is shifting.  Some of the biggest journals even require the use of first person now.  So, these conventions that force us to speak in the passive voice and avoid any sense of humanity are not cast in stone and change over time.  As I mentioned, much of Darwin's writings are written in a very personal manner that make them quite enjoyable to read.

Yes, we've mostly successfully made this shift in psychology. I still occasionally see "It was hypothesized that. . ." and always want to ask who's hypothesis was this, if not you, the authors'? Is there some mysterious force in the universe that produces hypotheses all on its own?

The one thing I have pointed out to students is that the point of the traditional use of the passive voice is to not make the experimentors a distraction. So, *"Bob combined the chemicals..." implicitly suggests that somehow it matters that Bob did it. So moving away from the passive voice isn't a big deal if it can be done in a way that doesn't unintentionally draw attention to meaningless details.


*If instead it said something like "As soon as the chemicals were combined, ...." it would have more of an active "flow" without introducing the extraneous detail of the experimentor's name. Even the passive voice can be much less stodgy if it's used well.

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 02, 2020, 11:19:55 AM
So, *"Bob combined the chemicals..."

*If instead it said something like "As soon as the chemicals were combined, ...."

The name isn't relevant.  "We combined the chemicals..." or "After I combined the chemicals..."

Nice and concise.  Four or five words vs. seven words in your suggested revision.

Quote from: Puget on December 02, 2020, 10:56:30 AM
I still occasionally see "It was hypothesized that. . ." and always want to ask who's hypothesis was this, if not you, the authors'? Is there some mysterious force in the universe that produces hypotheses all on its own?

A remarkably large part of graduate education seems to be persuading students that they should stop searching for that mysterious force and start developing testable hypotheses.

Writing out those hypotheses in clear language is a challenging but tremendously valuable process.

Quote from: Hibush on December 02, 2020, 02:00:30 PM

Quote from: Puget on December 02, 2020, 10:56:30 AM
I still occasionally see "It was hypothesized that. . ." and always want to ask who's hypothesis was this, if not you, the authors'? Is there some mysterious force in the universe that produces hypotheses all on its own?

A remarkably large part of graduate education seems to be persuading students that they should stop searching for that mysterious force and start developing testable hypotheses.

Writing out those hypotheses in clear language is a challenging but tremendously valuable process.

This is so true!
Also persuading them that "it hasn't been studied" is not the same thing as "it should be studied".

Quote from: Cheerful on December 02, 2020, 01:46:44 PM
The name isn't relevant.  "We combined the chemicals..." or "After I combined the chemicals..."

Nice and concise.  Four or five words vs. seven words in your suggested revision.

"Once combined, the chemicals . . ."? But only if the chemicals actually do something (say, instead of the glassware shattering). I think you are just updating "as soon as," really, because "Once/After the chemicals were combined" is just as brief as the second example above.

In contrast, if this were one of my students, it would be "In the novel* Bob combines the chemicals because he wants to be ironic. The author intends to show his** deep sadness, because he uses the word 'chemicals.' Irony has been an important literary term since the beginning of time and is used in almost every novel, especially this one, where it is in all of Bob's actions."

*any writing=novel; **ambiguous on purpose, because the students always do, so why not?

To return to the current theme of the thread, I always imagined passive voice was meant to describe the actions as neutrally as possible. My idea of a laboratory experiment (not being a scientist) is that any scientist who performs the actions described should come up with the same result, so I think of "after the chemicals were combined" as allowing anyone to do the combining.

AR.

Except "We" didn't combine the chemicals. One of us did. And then maybe another of us did in a similar manner later on. And maybe even once they were combined by a random rotation student who didn't do anything after and is only listed in the acknowledgements.

I don't love the passive voice but I kinda can't stand excessive use of We either. When describing a lab protocol I think passive is just fine.

A question for forumites who were educated and/or employed in academic circles in non-Anglophone countries, how is the 'coherence', etc., of the academic writing styles in your countries?

Quote from: Puget on December 02, 2020, 02:37:25 PM

Quote from: Hibush on December 02, 2020, 02:00:30 PM

Quote from: Puget on December 02, 2020, 10:56:30 AM
I still occasionally see "It was hypothesized that. . ." and always want to ask who's hypothesis was this, if not you, the authors'? Is there some mysterious force in the universe that produces hypotheses all on its own?

A remarkably large part of graduate education seems to be persuading students that they should stop searching for that mysterious force and start developing testable hypotheses.

Writing out those hypotheses in clear language is a challenging but tremendously valuable process.

This is so true!
Also persuading them that "it hasn't been studied" is not the same thing as "it should be studied".

All of this! I remember a very formative moment in my PhD studies when my advisor had to explain to me that the answer to 'why did you choose this particular variable as a factor in your experiment?' should not be 'because I've already studied [variable] and like it and know it pretty well.'

Quote from: fizzycist on December 02, 2020, 08:24:49 PM
Except "We" didn't combine the chemicals. One of us did. And then maybe another of us did in a similar manner later on. And maybe even once they were combined by a random rotation student who didn't do anything after and is only listed in the acknowledgements.

Along this line, I can see in a social science experiment, it might be helpful to know that "we" interviewed ... (instead of "some grad student", or "an external organization we contracted"...) because it would imply that the interviewer(s) were well aware of all of the required protocols, methodology, etc.

Quote
I don't love the passive voice but I kinda can't stand excessive use of We either. When describing a lab protocol I think passive is just fine.

I think of this like my Youtube lab demonstrations. My face isn't in them; at most my hands show up when they are touching equipment. Because anyone going through the same steps should get the same results (as someone mentioned in a previous post).

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 03, 2020, 04:15:11 AM

Quote from: fizzycist on December 02, 2020, 08:24:49 PM
Except "We" didn't combine the chemicals. One of us did. And then maybe another of us did in a similar manner later on. And maybe even once they were combined by a random rotation student who didn't do anything after and is only listed in the acknowledgements.

Along this line, I can see in a social science experiment, it might be helpful to know that "we" interviewed ... (instead of "some grad student", or "an external organization we contracted"...) because it would imply that the interviewer(s) were well aware of all of the required protocols, methodology, etc.

Quote
I don't love the passive voice but I kinda can't stand excessive use of We either. When describing a lab protocol I think passive is just fine.

I think of this like my Youtube lab demonstrations. My face isn't in them; at most my hands show up when they are touching equipment. Because anyone going through the same steps should get the same results (as someone mentioned in a previous post).

Agreed. Passive is fine for lab protocols. Impersonal passive is horrible in constructions like 'it was hypothesized that . . .' or 'it was observed that . . .'

Quote from: ergative on December 03, 2020, 04:02:54 AM

Quote from: Puget on December 02, 2020, 02:37:25 PM

Quote from: Hibush on December 02, 2020, 02:00:30 PM

Quote from: Puget on December 02, 2020, 10:56:30 AM
I still occasionally see "It was hypothesized that. . ." and always want to ask who's hypothesis was this, if not you, the authors'? Is there some mysterious force in the universe that produces hypotheses all on its own?

A remarkably large part of graduate education seems to be persuading students that they should stop searching for that mysterious force and start developing testable hypotheses.

Writing out those hypotheses in clear language is a challenging but tremendously valuable process.

This is so true!
Also persuading them that "it hasn't been studied" is not the same thing as "it should be studied".

All of this! I remember a very formative moment in my PhD studies when my advisor had to explain to me that the answer to 'why did you choose this particular variable as a factor in your experiment?' should not be 'because I've already studied [variable] and like it and know it pretty well.'

Ha, yes I had versions of that in my humanities phd program. It can be true, but you need a cover story...

Quote from: kaysixteen on December 02, 2020, 10:16:23 PM
A question for forumites who were educated and/or employed in academic circles in non-Anglophone countries, how is the 'coherence', etc., of the academic writing styles in your countries?

In my field, the lingua franca in the early 20th century was German. If you are into long, complicated sentences with delayed gratification (i.e. you have to wait for the end to get the verbs), then you can do no better than German. Some publications even used gothic typefaces to make comprehension even harder. Some of the scientists of that day were really accomplished at long but coherent and ultimately clear sentences. Some were, of course, unintelligible and too enamored with ever fancier obfuscation that the medium allows.

At the same time, Einstein's 1905 papers--while having difficult math--have direct, crystal-clear sentences. He wanted to make sure readers understood what he found, recognizing that it would take quite a conceptual stretch to appreciate how they changed ones view of the physical world.

I've heard it said that when a German historian wrote a three-volume work, the third volume contained the verbs.

Quote from: apl68 on December 03, 2020, 09:49:28 AM
I've heard it said that when a German historian wrote a three-volume work, the third volume contained the verbs.

Boom, tish! That's lovely!

Quote from: apl68 on December 03, 2020, 09:49:28 AM
I've heard it said that when a German historian wrote a three-volume work, the third volume contained the verbs.

What an accomplishment! One for the history books.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 03, 2020, 11:37:53 AM

Quote from: apl68 on December 03, 2020, 09:49:28 AM
I've heard it said that when a German historian wrote a three-volume work, the third volume contained the verbs.

Boom, tish! That's lovely!

Thank you, I'll be here all night!

No, sorry, actually I'm about to head home.  It's my short day.

On second thought, I'm not sorry at all.

Quote from: apl68 on December 03, 2020, 01:00:40 PM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 03, 2020, 11:37:53 AM

Quote from: apl68 on December 03, 2020, 09:49:28 AM
I've heard it said that when a German historian wrote a three-volume work, the third volume contained the verbs.

Boom, tish! That's lovely!

Thank you, I'll be here all night!

No, sorry, actually I'm about to head home.  It's my short day.

On second thought, I'm not sorry at all.

What does this "head home" mean? I seem to have some vague recollection of the term, but its significance is obscure.

I know a colleague who writes very densely, full of abstruse jargon, and he is a writing coach for struggling students.  Ironic.

Seriously, this whole issue depends on your purpose in writing that is not obvious. Writing only for tenure or for jobs, then your writing does not need to be widely understood by your peer colleagues, or does it? Who is reading it?

If you are writing to be read, as I am, then clarity and style is important.
Also, if you are making a significant contribution (most of us aren't), clarity is laudable.
Unfortunately, some of the best thinkers in history were bad writers. Misinterpreted or unread. I worked harder and longer on my novel than my dissertation because style is everything.

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 03, 2020, 01:42:30 PM

What does this "head home" mean? I seem to have some vague recollection of the term, but its significance is obscure.

I've had the great good fortune not to miss a single day at work--the actual, physical location--since the pandemic began.  Even when we were closed to the public, somebody had to be there to answer the phone and do other caretaker stuff.  That was me.  It was eerie working in that empty building.

Quote from: Myword on December 04, 2020, 06:41:25 AM
Seriously, this whole issue depends on your purpose in writing that is not obvious. Writing only for tenure or for jobs, then your writing does not need to be widely understood by your peer colleagues, or does it? Who is reading it?

Does it need to be written at all?

Come to think of it, all the junk journals we decry here may serve a purpose in the meta-intellectual activity of generating unread verbiage for the purpose of populating unevaluated curricula vita.

Quote from: apl68 on December 04, 2020, 08:00:18 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 03, 2020, 01:42:30 PM

What does this "head home" mean? I seem to have some vague recollection of the term, but its significance is obscure.

I've had the great good fortune not to miss a single day at work--the actual, physical location--since the pandemic began.  Even when we were closed to the public, somebody had to be there to answer the phone and do other caretaker stuff.  That was me.  It was eerie working in that empty building.

The other day I was shoveling snow and realized it was a work day and normally I'd have had to get up in the dark to shovel so I could be at work on time. Now, with everything asynchronous, I can run errands, etc. during the day, check messages periodically, and everything just ticks along in the background. It's going to be an adjustment to get back to what was normal for decades.

German and French actually have separate verb tenses and some vocabulary that are really not spoken, just used in more formal types of writing-- German especially is vastly more diglossic than any dialect of English.   But this is not really the same as deliberate lack of clarity/ obfuscation, etc..... it however would not surprise me to realize that many German scholars do that as well.   My German is not awful, and was certainly better when I was in grad school-- classicists have to read it, and read a lot of German scholarship in dissertation studies, but my German is and was not good enough to recognize deliberate incoherence of the sort seen in many Anglophone lit crit-style journals, if I had encountered it....

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 04, 2020, 09:38:11 AM

Quote from: apl68 on December 04, 2020, 08:00:18 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 03, 2020, 01:42:30 PM

What does this "head home" mean? I seem to have some vague recollection of the term, but its significance is obscure.

I've had the great good fortune not to miss a single day at work--the actual, physical location--since the pandemic began.  Even when we were closed to the public, somebody had to be there to answer the phone and do other caretaker stuff.  That was me.  It was eerie working in that empty building.

The other day I was shoveling snow and realized it was a work day and normally I'd have had to get up in the dark to shovel so I could be at work on time. Now, with everything asynchronous, I can run errands, etc. during the day, check messages periodically, and everything just ticks along in the background. It's going to be an adjustment to get back to what was normal for decades.

That's what I dislike. Obviously, the process of going into work is often a pain in the moment, but it creates a structure. Without it, I have all of the stress and anxiety of teaching but it all just happens in my house without all of the external stimulus that gives it context.

I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the sadly defunct bad writing contest.

http://www.denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm

Quote from: downer on December 06, 2020, 05:27:17 AM
I don't think anyone has yet mentioned the sadly defunct bad writing contest.

http://www.denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm

The Bad Writing Contest link did not load for me, so the site may be as defunct as the contest. Prof. Dutton is these ten years passed. The website is at the Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/web/20200729200534/http://www.denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm), though.

But is the contest really defunct? Or is it simply waiting for a disruptive academic entrepreneur to revive it. How about somebody here, with help from grad students?

While not academic writing, the Bulwer Lytton Fiction contest endures. This year's winner, for reference: "Her Dear John missive flapped unambiguously in the windy breeze, hanging like a pizza menu on the doorknob of my mind."

One merit of the BLWC is that the entire winning work can be included in a brief forum post. While the Lytonniad attracts bad writing, it is concise.

The link works fine for me.

Quote from: Caracal on December 06, 2020, 05:13:41 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 04, 2020, 09:38:11 AM

Quote from: apl68 on December 04, 2020, 08:00:18 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 03, 2020, 01:42:30 PM

What does this "head home" mean? I seem to have some vague recollection of the term, but its significance is obscure.

I've had the great good fortune not to miss a single day at work--the actual, physical location--since the pandemic began.  Even when we were closed to the public, somebody had to be there to answer the phone and do other caretaker stuff.  That was me.  It was eerie working in that empty building.

The other day I was shoveling snow and realized it was a work day and normally I'd have had to get up in the dark to shovel so I could be at work on time. Now, with everything asynchronous, I can run errands, etc. during the day, check messages periodically, and everything just ticks along in the background. It's going to be an adjustment to get back to what was normal for decades.

That's what I dislike. Obviously, the process of going into work is often a pain in the moment, but it creates a structure. Without it, I have all of the stress and anxiety of teaching but it all just happens in my house without all of the external stimulus that gives it context.

I know this all too well.  I retired, but adjuncted a course a semester, and was lucky that my chair gave me an office, etc.  It provided structure to the days.  Having neither a course nor an office (it's still there, but inaccessible) makes the days kind of vague and vaporous.  IS it Sunday?  Bourbon has become too close a friend...

My son is a math major and found this: https://thatsmathematics.com/mathgen/ (https://thatsmathematics.com/mathgen/). He said its output is just as intelligible as the course he's taking this semester. I thought it was appropriate here. My experience is that mathematicians do their best to obfuscate the most simple concept with arcane terminology.

This post is not just OT, it is the very opposite.

This nugget is from today's Nobel Lecture of Louise Glück (https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2020/gluck/lecture/), literature laureate.

She writes about the relationship between an academic writer and their reader.

Quote
We were an elite, companions in invisibility, a fact known only to us, which each corroborated for the other. In the world, we were nobody.

QuoteI've heard it said that when a German historian wrote a three-volume work, the third volume contained the verbs.

A little late to this, but I always loved Mark Twain's saying that German is the only language where you can jump into the ocean with the beginning of a sentence and finally emerge on the opposite shore with the verb.

Quote from: fourhats on December 07, 2020, 03:03:38 PM

QuoteI've heard it said that when a German historian wrote a three-volume work, the third volume contained the verbs.

A little late to this, but I always loved Mark Twain's saying that German is the only language where you can jump into the ocean with the beginning of a sentence and finally emerge on the opposite shore with the verb.

And that German was in danger of becoming a dead language--because only the dead could ever have enough time to learn it.

Quote from: apl68 on December 08, 2020, 07:44:30 AM

Quote from: fourhats on December 07, 2020, 03:03:38 PM

QuoteI've heard it said that when a German historian wrote a three-volume work, the third volume contained the verbs.

A little late to this, but I always loved Mark Twain's saying that German is the only language where you can jump into the ocean with the beginning of a sentence and finally emerge on the opposite shore with the verb.

And that German was in danger of becoming a dead language--because only the dead could ever have enough time to learn it.

William James (studying there) wrote home that German was a language without any of the modern improvements.  Or something like that.

Katherine Mansfield had some interesting observations as well...

M.

For some reason "Incoherent Style" in the thread title makes me think of the way art historians speak of different styles. 

"And this is an excellent example of the Incoherent Style of archaic Greek sculpture."

Quote from: apl68 on December 21, 2020, 08:10:51 AM
For some reason "Incoherent Style" in the thread title makes me think of the way art historians speak of different styles. 

"And this is an excellent example of the Incoherent Style of archaic Greek sculpture."

How could you know if you had one? Wouldn't calling something "an example" disqualify it on the grounds that it was too coherent to a standard?

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 21, 2020, 08:34:04 AM

Quote from: apl68 on December 21, 2020, 08:10:51 AM
For some reason "Incoherent Style" in the thread title makes me think of the way art historians speak of different styles. 

"And this is an excellent example of the Incoherent Style of archaic Greek sculpture."

How could you know if you had one? Wouldn't calling something "an example" disqualify it on the grounds that it was too coherent to a standard?

A question that has puzzled are historians for generations!

Quote from: apl68 on December 21, 2020, 08:44:53 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 21, 2020, 08:34:04 AM

Quote from: apl68 on December 21, 2020, 08:10:51 AM
For some reason "Incoherent Style" in the thread title makes me think of the way art historians speak of different styles. 

"And this is an excellent example of the Incoherent Style of archaic Greek sculpture."

How could you know if you had one? Wouldn't calling something "an example" disqualify it on the grounds that it was too coherent to a standard?

A question that has puzzled are historians for generations!

It reminds me of this:
https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1995/01/09

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 21, 2020, 09:21:22 AM

Quote from: apl68 on December 21, 2020, 08:44:53 AM

Quote from: marshwiggle on December 21, 2020, 08:34:04 AM

Quote from: apl68 on December 21, 2020, 08:10:51 AM
For some reason "Incoherent Style" in the thread title makes me think of the way art historians speak of different styles. 

"And this is an excellent example of the Incoherent Style of archaic Greek sculpture."

How could you know if you had one? Wouldn't calling something "an example" disqualify it on the grounds that it was too coherent to a standard?

A question that has puzzled are historians for generations!

It reminds me of this:
https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1995/01/09

LOL