5 ms·

While the author has ample experience in the field of philosophy and has spent considerable time studying intuition (curriculum vitae: http://www.as.miami.edu/p

While the author has ample experience in the field of philosophy and has spent considerable time studying intuition (curriculum vitae: http://www.as.miami.edu/personal/echudnoff/CV.pdf http://www.as.miami.edu/personal/echudnoff/CV.pdf), the writing style seems too informal and personal for my taste. Without looking up the author, I would not have dared to guesstimate that the author is an associate professor, but rather a hobbyist. Perhaps such a style is common in the field (I rarely read philosophy papers), but coming from a natural sciences background it seems very odd.

WhitneyLand 10y ago
I don't think informality is what's objectionable, I think it's good when papers are more accessible without sacrificing precision or expression. The problem here seems to be witting skills. For example, this should never be a sentence: "That is the aim of section 1."
- handcreme 10y ago
  Non-native speaker here. What is wrong with this sentence and how would you improve it?
  - WhitneyLand 10y ago
    I hate to say it but I don't know grammar rules well enough to explain it. The best I can offer is something that sounds better to me. First example is the paper, second example is one possible rewrite: "The first order of business will be to draw some distinctions between these notions and pick an appropriate focus for our present inquiry. That is the aim of section 1." "Section 1 draws distinctions between these notions, one of which will be the focus of our inquiry."
    - jnbiche 10y ago
      You're probably mostly objecting to the passive voice, which is a reasonable stand to take in scientific writing. He uses passive voice three times in these two sentences alone.
      - jackcarter 10y ago
        Using "to be" isn't necessarily the passive voice. The author doesn't use the passive voice in those sentences. http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/passive-voice/ http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/passive-voice/
        jnbiche 10y ago
        You're absolutely right, I misread those. Passive voice would be "to be drawn", "to be read", etc. Thank you.
  - acomar 10y ago
    It's always either redundant or indicative of a problem elsewhere. Either section 1 has a title/thesis that makes it obvious what it's about and so the restatement is unnecessary, or you need to say it because you haven't already made it obvious. Instead of saying "This is the aim of section 1", just make the point of the section apparent. This is a class of stylistic issue that's common in professional writing by those new to it and usually stems from a lack of confidence in the topic or in one's self.
    - tpetricek 10y ago
      Giving "overview of the rest of the paper" that points out what will be happening in future sections is quite common in academic literature - there are better ways to phrase it (and many people writing academic papers, myself included, try to word it so that it does not sound that silly), but this wording (even if grammatically quite clumsy) sounds pretty standard to me - I would not overthink it as a "lack of confidence".
  - thatcat 10y ago
    Remove it. If you've stated your goal, that should be clear. There is no reason to state that you've stated your goal.
    - HarryHirsch 10y ago
      There are undertones here. What the section really says is that mathematical intuition has different aspects that are very distinct, and that a discussion of some of these will follow. Which ones these are and why these were chosen will be discussed in Section 1. The task of the editor is never to impose their style upon the author. There are different writing styles even in academic writing, a wordy one, one that chooses outrageous words, a very terse one, and the awful MBA-style kind. What's worst is an editor that sees a sentence that he does not understand, and edits that, thinking it's just style but completely changes the meaning.
      - thatcat 10y ago
        The editors job is to improve the writing by making it easier for the intended audience to read and comprehend. In this case, the sentence can be easily worked into the preceding sentence which it echos - by changing the place holder clause "The first order of business is.." to "The aim of section one is..".
        HarryHirsch 10y ago
        That version loses the emphasis on recognizing that there are distinct aspects of mathematical intuition. Congratulations! You successfully changed the meaning of the sentence! The intended audience is mathematicians and philosophers, these people can be expected to have full grasp of the English language and to engage with the paper. I once was working with a horrible boss like that. I'd write a draft of the paper, she would not understand subject or prose and change some sentences into something else, based on her limited understanding of the subject and the prose. It was excruciating. You'd read her draft full of MBA-speak and couldn't make out the meaning of some of it!
        10y ago
  - alimw 10y ago
    There is nothing wrong with it. Rather question the judgment of someone who has used the words "witting skills".
- jordigh 10y ago
  > The problem here seems to be witting skills. Heheheh... ;-)
tomxor 10y ago
It's also annoyingly and unnecessarily double spaced. While decent leading (line-height) is an important typographical element for legibility, double spacing is just frustratingly inefficient for reading. You don't have to be a type setter or poet to care enough to get the basics right for your "paper", learn by example at the least.
- BeetleB 10y ago
  In the publishing industry, many require you to submit double spaced - they will change it to single spaced before the final publication. I agree the final one posted to the web should be single spaced, but perhaps he is merely uploading the document he submitted somewhere.
BeetleB 10y ago
Let me guess: You're one of the "serious papers should be written in the passive voice" people?
- Ar-Curunir 10y ago
  I don't think any modern academic writing guide recommends this; almost every piece of advice I've seen tries to emphasize writing in the active voice. You don't have to write in passive voice to be rigorous; I'm guessing the OP was talking about this lack of rigour.
  - BeetleB 10y ago
    I thought the tide had shifted towards active voice as well. However, a year or two ago I looked it up and some well known journals still preferred passive voice. Here's an interesting recent paper that found that roughly 30% of papers are still in the passive voice (admittedly, I was expecting a higher percentage).
hyperpape 10y ago
I would say this is relatively typical. (Background: I did a masters in philosophy at Pitt). Edit: I would also say that it's unfortunate that parts of philosophy are this hand-wavy. For instance, at one point in the paper, the author describes hallucinating that you see a letter in your mailbox as being phenomenologically just like actually seeing one. Daniel Dennett has a well known discussion in the first chapter of Consciousness Explained arguing that hallucinations are phenomenologically quite different from normal perception. Perhaps the author would say it doesn't matter, that's just a contingent fact that doesn't undermine the specific point being made, but 1) I'm not confident that argument works, and 2) either way, it should be stated explicitly.
FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
I'm on the other side of the fence when it comes to writing style, especially in published research papers in the hard sciences. I can count the number written in this style on one hand. When there is passion in someone's writing voice, it infects me. One of the reasons I didn't pursue a scientific career is that I write in a somewhat whimsical style and would feel my soul being crushed if my career was spent churning out papers devoid of any passion or love for the field

WhitneyLand 10y ago

I don't think informality is what's objectionable, I think it's good when papers are more accessible without sacrificing precision or expression. The problem here seems to be witting skills. For example, this should never be a sentence: "That is the aim of section 1."

handcreme 10y ago
Non-native speaker here. What is wrong with this sentence and how would you improve it?
- WhitneyLand 10y ago
  I hate to say it but I don't know grammar rules well enough to explain it. The best I can offer is something that sounds better to me. First example is the paper, second example is one possible rewrite: "The first order of business will be to draw some distinctions between these notions and pick an appropriate focus for our present inquiry. That is the aim of section 1." "Section 1 draws distinctions between these notions, one of which will be the focus of our inquiry."
  - jnbiche 10y ago
    You're probably mostly objecting to the passive voice, which is a reasonable stand to take in scientific writing. He uses passive voice three times in these two sentences alone.
    - jackcarter 10y ago
      Using "to be" isn't necessarily the passive voice. The author doesn't use the passive voice in those sentences. http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/passive-voice/ http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/passive-voice/
      - jnbiche 10y ago
        You're absolutely right, I misread those. Passive voice would be "to be drawn", "to be read", etc. Thank you.
- acomar 10y ago
  It's always either redundant or indicative of a problem elsewhere. Either section 1 has a title/thesis that makes it obvious what it's about and so the restatement is unnecessary, or you need to say it because you haven't already made it obvious. Instead of saying "This is the aim of section 1", just make the point of the section apparent. This is a class of stylistic issue that's common in professional writing by those new to it and usually stems from a lack of confidence in the topic or in one's self.
  - tpetricek 10y ago
    Giving "overview of the rest of the paper" that points out what will be happening in future sections is quite common in academic literature - there are better ways to phrase it (and many people writing academic papers, myself included, try to word it so that it does not sound that silly), but this wording (even if grammatically quite clumsy) sounds pretty standard to me - I would not overthink it as a "lack of confidence".
- thatcat 10y ago
  Remove it. If you've stated your goal, that should be clear. There is no reason to state that you've stated your goal.
  - HarryHirsch 10y ago
    There are undertones here. What the section really says is that mathematical intuition has different aspects that are very distinct, and that a discussion of some of these will follow. Which ones these are and why these were chosen will be discussed in Section 1. The task of the editor is never to impose their style upon the author. There are different writing styles even in academic writing, a wordy one, one that chooses outrageous words, a very terse one, and the awful MBA-style kind. What's worst is an editor that sees a sentence that he does not understand, and edits that, thinking it's just style but completely changes the meaning.
    - thatcat 10y ago
      The editors job is to improve the writing by making it easier for the intended audience to read and comprehend. In this case, the sentence can be easily worked into the preceding sentence which it echos - by changing the place holder clause "The first order of business is.." to "The aim of section one is..".
      - HarryHirsch 10y ago
        That version loses the emphasis on recognizing that there are distinct aspects of mathematical intuition. Congratulations! You successfully changed the meaning of the sentence! The intended audience is mathematicians and philosophers, these people can be expected to have full grasp of the English language and to engage with the paper. I once was working with a horrible boss like that. I'd write a draft of the paper, she would not understand subject or prose and change some sentences into something else, based on her limited understanding of the subject and the prose. It was excruciating. You'd read her draft full of MBA-speak and couldn't make out the meaning of some of it!
        10y ago
- alimw 10y ago
  There is nothing wrong with it. Rather question the judgment of someone who has used the words "witting skills".
jordigh 10y ago
> The problem here seems to be witting skills. Heheheh... ;-)

tomxor 10y ago

It's also annoyingly and unnecessarily double spaced. While decent leading (line-height) is an important typographical element for legibility, double spacing is just frustratingly inefficient for reading. You don't have to be a type setter or poet to care enough to get the basics right for your "paper", learn by example at the least.

BeetleB 10y ago
In the publishing industry, many require you to submit double spaced - they will change it to single spaced before the final publication. I agree the final one posted to the web should be single spaced, but perhaps he is merely uploading the document he submitted somewhere.

BeetleB 10y ago

Let me guess: You're one of the "serious papers should be written in the passive voice" people?

Ar-Curunir 10y ago
I don't think any modern academic writing guide recommends this; almost every piece of advice I've seen tries to emphasize writing in the active voice. You don't have to write in passive voice to be rigorous; I'm guessing the OP was talking about this lack of rigour.
- BeetleB 10y ago
  I thought the tide had shifted towards active voice as well. However, a year or two ago I looked it up and some well known journals still preferred passive voice. Here's an interesting recent paper that found that roughly 30% of papers are still in the passive voice (admittedly, I was expecting a higher percentage).

hyperpape 10y ago

I would say this is relatively typical. (Background: I did a masters in philosophy at Pitt). Edit: I would also say that it's unfortunate that parts of philosophy are this hand-wavy. For instance, at one point in the paper, the author describes hallucinating that you see a letter in your mailbox as being phenomenologically just like actually seeing one. Daniel Dennett has a well known discussion in the first chapter of Consciousness Explained arguing that hallucinations are phenomenologically quite different from normal perception. Perhaps the author would say it doesn't matter, that's just a contingent fact that doesn't undermine the specific point being made, but 1) I'm not confident that argument works, and 2) either way, it should be stated explicitly.

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago

I'm on the other side of the fence when it comes to writing style, especially in published research papers in the hard sciences. I can count the number written in this style on one hand. When there is passion in someone's writing voice, it infects me. One of the reasons I didn't pursue a scientific career is that I write in a somewhat whimsical style and would feel my soul being crushed if my career was spent churning out papers devoid of any passion or love for the field