4 ms·
Another issue I didn't see in this interview is that academics (at least in the sciences) aren't trained to write, but they are often held to the same standards
by j2kun 10y ago
Another issue I didn't see in this interview is that academics (at least in the sciences) aren't trained to write, but they are often held to the same standards as those who are trained. Moreover, a scientist's job isn't primarily to write for a general audience, so it's hard to say they've failed in that regard. Whereas a journalist who gets the science wrong when reporting on it (beyond simply dumbing it down or massaging the truth for comprehension) fails at the defining feature of the job: reporting the facts.
- grabcocque 10y agoThe real issue here is there may not be any way to report the "facts" such as they are. The jargon, the mathematical models are the sine qua non of the facts. Without them you're just playing sophistic games trying to engage lay enthusiasm with overwrought analogies that never really approximate the truth.
- veddox 10y agoUnfortunately, when the journalist fails and gets the science wrong, the result is a whole bunch of people with silly ideas about science (as if we didn't have enough of those already). When the scientist fails and gets the language wrong, the result is a whole bunch of people whose silly ideas about science aren't corrected because they never read the article. Science loses either way.
- j2kun 10y ago> When the scientist fails and gets the language wrong I think you mean, when a scientist writes technically precise jargon that is misinterpreted? If you mean that the scientist did bad science, science self-corrects for that (at least in theory, and it has worked pretty well in practice).
- veddox 10y agoYes, that's what I meant.
- Fomite 10y agoIt's also not what we do for a living. I rough order of what I should be doing with my day: 1. Writing Papers 2. Writing Grants 3. Mentoring Students 4. Thinking up new ideas for 1 & 2 ... Somewhere, probably right around "Refactor a bunch of code", is "Write for a lay audience". How many members of any profession are good at a thing that's not even a tertiary priority for their job compared to the people who are experts in that?