Incoherent Style of Academic Writing

[writingprof]

(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.

[Stockmann]

My 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...

[marshwiggle]

My 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.

[ergative]

My 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?

[marshwiggle]

My 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).

[fizzycist]

My 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.

[ergative]

My 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.

[apl68]

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.

[jimbogumbo]

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.

[Stockmann]

My 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.

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[darkstarrynight]

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...

[ergative]

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!

[Kron3007]

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.

[Ruralguy]

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.