5 ms·

I'm going to be snobby. There is a vast VAST difference between the humanities and social sciences and natural sciences with jargon use. There are a shitload of

I'm going to be snobby. There is a vast VAST difference between the humanities and social sciences and natural sciences with jargon use. There are a shitload of things no one ever talks about that need a name. Jargon in natural science is used to speak precisely, but in social science it's invariably used to speak in general terms. In human geography the words "place" and "space" for example are quite maddening to a scientist. In natural science words aren't made up to replace simpler common words about phenomena most people are aware of. Instead the names for the most part are very specifically systematic and precise especially in Chemistry. So from a composite name like "hydrogen dioxide" and "carbon dioxide" you get an idea of similarity. If everyone spoke about "water" and other dioxides, it's actually less obvious you're only talking about dioxides. The worst offenders in natural science are for sure people who work in taxonomy and phylogenetics. They still demand that everyone understand Latin and use really ridiculous names for most species. It took me two years to realise all the things with "carteri" in the name wasn't something meaningful. It just meant "Carter's", who was the victorian mutton-chop-rocking guy who discovered them. But the naming of species isn't very systematic in general, and is frequently whimsical. A fun example is "Selenochlamys ysbryd" one of the only species to be designated with a Welsh-Latin fusion name https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_slug#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_slug#Etymology I like that they got away with it, but I doubt anyone got from "ysbryda" the slug would look "ghostly". I can't even argue with the use of latin, there is too much stuff to name in just english without it becoming incredibly confusing. There's only so many ways you can say "brown beetle".

mdpopescu 9y ago
> So from a composite name like "hydrogen dioxide" and "carbon dioxide" you get an idea of similarity. If everyone spoke about "water" and other dioxides... Er... I generally agree with what you're saying, but water is not hydrogen dioxide, it's dihydrogen monoxide. It's most definitely not similar to carbon dioxide :)
- Ultimatt 9y ago
  Hah! See this is why it should be just "water" OMG. Ok so dinitrogen monoxide :P which also has a common name related to how I feel right now. I just woke up gimme a break :'( It's almost certainly not obvious using "water" and "laughing gas" the two have something in common.
glormph 9y ago
If you think species names are whimsical, wait until you see the list of Drosophila (fruit fly) gene names. edit: I am not sure species names should be systematical either, as long as they are differently named. Molecules up to a certain complexity can be named by their formula. Species have far greater complexity yet.
matttproud 9y ago
You needn't look too far within the realm of social sciences to find jargon being used to convey precise nuance: liberal democracy versus illiberal democracy majoritarian electoral system versus a consociational electoral system Complain all you want about the comparative politics branch of political science being descriptive, but its qualitative analysis does offer a useful framework for reasoning with the world and its outcomes.
- xapata 9y ago
  The frustrating thing about political jargon is that some folks intentionally twist the meanings. The meanings shift much faster in that field than others.
paperpunk 9y ago
I can't speak for the natural sciences, but I'm an academic in an engineering department at a major university in the UK. My main criticism of the article is that it sort of lets non-humanities off the hook. I've been sat in seminars in my group (on computer science or engineering topics) and had the same feelings as the author. People invent jargon to describe simple ideas and then convince themselves that it's more precise when it rarely is or, when it is precise, the precision isn't necessary. All it ends up doing is reducing the impact of the research. But it does help with the imposter syndrome of being an early-career academic – everyone else is using all this complicated jargon and you feel a bit like a fraud, so you need to get to grips with it quickly. This isn't a problem unique to academia though it might be more severe there. There's a section on the gov.uk's 'Writing for GOV.UK' [1] article that I like: "Government experts often say that because they’re writing technical or complex content for a specialist audience, they don’t need to use plain English. This is wrong. Research [2] shows that higher literacy people prefer plain English because it allows them to understand the information as quickly as possible. For example, research [3] into use of specialist legal language in legal documents found: - 80% of people preferred sentences written in clear English - and the more complex the issue, the greater that preference (eg, 97% preferred ‘among other things’ over the Latin ‘inter alia’) - the more educated the person and the more specialist their knowledge, the greater their preference for plain English" [1]: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-uk https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-u... [2]: https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2014/02/17/guest-post-clarity-is-king-the-evidence-that-reveals-the-desperate-need-to-re-think-the-way-we-write/ https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2014/02/17/guest-post-clarity-is-kin... [3]: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=christopher_trudeau http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&co...
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  Of course people prefer plain, simple English. But jargon isn't limited to academia. Cults have their own languages, so do cultural scenes, so do generations. (Ask a teenager for details.) So do businesses, start-ups, VCs, and so on. IMO the original article doesn't go far enough. These jargon systems are identity markers. They're primarily intended to manage status, identify insiders, and exclude outsiders. Arguably most academic and technical systems are designed to do this - including software. There's an argument that sometimes systems are unconsciously designed to be obscure and hard to use (e.g. Unix) for tribal reasons, not because they're a good practical solution to a given problem. That aside, you can excuse jargon in science because it's actually useful. E.g. You won't get far trying to explain cellular biology by pointing at things and saying "This bit here. No, not that bit. This bit." It's less useful in the humanities, because the philosophical and academic content in the modern humanities is as much an identity marker as the jargon is. It's not there to provide creative insight or to wield political power. (It doesn't score high on either count.) It's there to provide evidence of tribal membership. Clearly, if academics then decide they want to talk to the public, they immediately have a problem, because you can't talk to the public using thought and language systems that are designed to exclude the public. This is the first piece I've seen by an academic that understands this.
jhbadger 9y ago
But there is still a real reason to have defined names for species, even if the names seem whimsical (and the Latin isn't to be obscure -- it was the common language of science for centuries -- Newton and Linnaeus wrote in Latin, for example).
seszett 9y ago
> They still demand that everyone understand Latin and use really ridiculous names for most species Well, the thing is you do need vaguely universal names for species, and when taxonomy and phylogenetics really started Latin was the universal language used for science. Maybe if Linnaeus had been born a century later, species would have French names instead. But Latin is nice because it's not related to any single nation anymore. But having a single universal reference name for all species, even if some of them are not intrinsically meaningful (but many are, mind you), is far better than every language having its own name for different things and no universal way to mention anything. Just try to talk about penguins or moths to French-speaking people, or explain the difference between goëlands and mouettes to English-speaking people, and you will quickly see the limits of vernacular names.
usrusr 9y ago
Species names are not systematic because species are not systematic. The most common definition is reproductive compatibility but that is so complex it's effectively random. Almost identical organisms could consistently fail to produce fully working offspring yet the hybrid of two completely different strains of terran life could theoretically luck into a reproducing cell pattern. For less esotheric examples for the limitations of the species concept look no further than "ring species". Species are not discrete points, they are a continuum that just happens to have a lot of gaps between many of the populated (surviving) areas. Species names are effectively GUIDs, that sometimes encode a bit of proximity assumptions (which may or may not be true). The traditional method of designating those GUIDs (some descriptive plays with a dead language, often namespaced to origin and/or the person who did the first description) surely isn't less mnemonic than other GUID patterns that could have been used instead.
- jasode 9y ago
  >The most common definition is reproductive compatibility but that is so complex As one example, the ability to breed is not always transitive.[1] - A can breed with B - B can breed with C - A can't breed with C Are A, B, C the same species? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
mcguire 9y ago
Have you by any chance really looked at mathematical notation recently?
dredmorbius 9y ago
The physical sciences seem to have particularly solid definitions because we've become so acculturated to them. In truth, though, the terms used borrow heavily from elsewhere, often social or cultural contexts, quite frequently prosaic ones. Vector: one who carries http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=vector&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=vector&allowed_in_f... Force: conquor by violence http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=force http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc... Gravity: thoughtfulness, seriousness http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=gravity http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc... Speed: to thrive or prosper http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=speed&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=speed&allowed_in_fr... Mass: barley cake http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mass&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mass&allowed_in_fra... Temperature: to restrain oneself http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=temperature&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=temperature&allowed... Energy: activity, action, operation http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=energy&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=energy&allowed_in_f... Atom: a cutting. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atom&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atom&allowed_in_fra... Electron: amber http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=electric&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=electric&allowed_in... Ion: to go http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ion&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ion&allowed_in_fram... Cathode, anode: a way up / down http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cathode&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cathode&allowed_in_... http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=anode&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=anode&allowed_in_fr... Valance: drapery http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=valance http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc... And I won't even both with "charm", "strangeness", "flavour", "spin", "top", and "bottom", all referencing properties of subatomic particles.

mdpopescu 9y ago

> So from a composite name like "hydrogen dioxide" and "carbon dioxide" you get an idea of similarity. If everyone spoke about "water" and other dioxides... Er... I generally agree with what you're saying, but water is not hydrogen dioxide, it's dihydrogen monoxide. It's most definitely not similar to carbon dioxide :)

Ultimatt 9y ago
Hah! See this is why it should be just "water" OMG. Ok so dinitrogen monoxide :P which also has a common name related to how I feel right now. I just woke up gimme a break :'( It's almost certainly not obvious using "water" and "laughing gas" the two have something in common.

glormph 9y ago

If you think species names are whimsical, wait until you see the list of Drosophila (fruit fly) gene names. edit: I am not sure species names should be systematical either, as long as they are differently named. Molecules up to a certain complexity can be named by their formula. Species have far greater complexity yet.

matttproud 9y ago

You needn't look too far within the realm of social sciences to find jargon being used to convey precise nuance: liberal democracy versus illiberal democracy majoritarian electoral system versus a consociational electoral system Complain all you want about the comparative politics branch of political science being descriptive, but its qualitative analysis does offer a useful framework for reasoning with the world and its outcomes.

xapata 9y ago
The frustrating thing about political jargon is that some folks intentionally twist the meanings. The meanings shift much faster in that field than others.

paperpunk 9y ago

I can't speak for the natural sciences, but I'm an academic in an engineering department at a major university in the UK. My main criticism of the article is that it sort of lets non-humanities off the hook. I've been sat in seminars in my group (on computer science or engineering topics) and had the same feelings as the author. People invent jargon to describe simple ideas and then convince themselves that it's more precise when it rarely is or, when it is precise, the precision isn't necessary. All it ends up doing is reducing the impact of the research. But it does help with the imposter syndrome of being an early-career academic – everyone else is using all this complicated jargon and you feel a bit like a fraud, so you need to get to grips with it quickly. This isn't a problem unique to academia though it might be more severe there. There's a section on the gov.uk's 'Writing for GOV.UK' [1] article that I like: "Government experts often say that because they’re writing technical or complex content for a specialist audience, they don’t need to use plain English. This is wrong. Research [2] shows that higher literacy people prefer plain English because it allows them to understand the information as quickly as possible. For example, research [3] into use of specialist legal language in legal documents found: - 80% of people preferred sentences written in clear English - and the more complex the issue, the greater that preference (eg, 97% preferred ‘among other things’ over the Latin ‘inter alia’) - the more educated the person and the more specialist their knowledge, the greater their preference for plain English" [1]: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-uk https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-u... [2]: https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2014/02/17/guest-post-clarity-is-king-the-evidence-that-reveals-the-desperate-need-to-re-think-the-way-we-write/ https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2014/02/17/guest-post-clarity-is-kin... [3]: http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=christopher_trudeau http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&co...

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
Of course people prefer plain, simple English. But jargon isn't limited to academia. Cults have their own languages, so do cultural scenes, so do generations. (Ask a teenager for details.) So do businesses, start-ups, VCs, and so on. IMO the original article doesn't go far enough. These jargon systems are identity markers. They're primarily intended to manage status, identify insiders, and exclude outsiders. Arguably most academic and technical systems are designed to do this - including software. There's an argument that sometimes systems are unconsciously designed to be obscure and hard to use (e.g. Unix) for tribal reasons, not because they're a good practical solution to a given problem. That aside, you can excuse jargon in science because it's actually useful. E.g. You won't get far trying to explain cellular biology by pointing at things and saying "This bit here. No, not that bit. This bit." It's less useful in the humanities, because the philosophical and academic content in the modern humanities is as much an identity marker as the jargon is. It's not there to provide creative insight or to wield political power. (It doesn't score high on either count.) It's there to provide evidence of tribal membership. Clearly, if academics then decide they want to talk to the public, they immediately have a problem, because you can't talk to the public using thought and language systems that are designed to exclude the public. This is the first piece I've seen by an academic that understands this.

jhbadger 9y ago

But there is still a real reason to have defined names for species, even if the names seem whimsical (and the Latin isn't to be obscure -- it was the common language of science for centuries -- Newton and Linnaeus wrote in Latin, for example).

seszett 9y ago

> They still demand that everyone understand Latin and use really ridiculous names for most species Well, the thing is you do need vaguely universal names for species, and when taxonomy and phylogenetics really started Latin was the universal language used for science. Maybe if Linnaeus had been born a century later, species would have French names instead. But Latin is nice because it's not related to any single nation anymore. But having a single universal reference name for all species, even if some of them are not intrinsically meaningful (but many are, mind you), is far better than every language having its own name for different things and no universal way to mention anything. Just try to talk about penguins or moths to French-speaking people, or explain the difference between goëlands and mouettes to English-speaking people, and you will quickly see the limits of vernacular names.

usrusr 9y ago

Species names are not systematic because species are not systematic. The most common definition is reproductive compatibility but that is so complex it's effectively random. Almost identical organisms could consistently fail to produce fully working offspring yet the hybrid of two completely different strains of terran life could theoretically luck into a reproducing cell pattern. For less esotheric examples for the limitations of the species concept look no further than "ring species". Species are not discrete points, they are a continuum that just happens to have a lot of gaps between many of the populated (surviving) areas. Species names are effectively GUIDs, that sometimes encode a bit of proximity assumptions (which may or may not be true). The traditional method of designating those GUIDs (some descriptive plays with a dead language, often namespaced to origin and/or the person who did the first description) surely isn't less mnemonic than other GUID patterns that could have been used instead.

jasode 9y ago
>The most common definition is reproductive compatibility but that is so complex As one example, the ability to breed is not always transitive.[1] - A can breed with B - B can breed with C - A can't breed with C Are A, B, C the same species? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

mcguire 9y ago

Have you by any chance really looked at mathematical notation recently?

dredmorbius 9y ago

The physical sciences seem to have particularly solid definitions because we've become so acculturated to them. In truth, though, the terms used borrow heavily from elsewhere, often social or cultural contexts, quite frequently prosaic ones. Vector: one who carries http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=vector&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=vector&allowed_in_f... Force: conquor by violence http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=force http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc... Gravity: thoughtfulness, seriousness http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=gravity http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc... Speed: to thrive or prosper http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=speed&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=speed&allowed_in_fr... Mass: barley cake http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mass&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mass&allowed_in_fra... Temperature: to restrain oneself http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=temperature&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=temperature&allowed... Energy: activity, action, operation http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=energy&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=energy&allowed_in_f... Atom: a cutting. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atom&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atom&allowed_in_fra... Electron: amber http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=electric&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=electric&allowed_in... Ion: to go http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ion&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ion&allowed_in_fram... Cathode, anode: a way up / down http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cathode&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cathode&allowed_in_... http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=anode&allowed_in_frame=0 http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=anode&allowed_in_fr... Valance: drapery http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=valance http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&searc... And I won't even both with "charm", "strangeness", "flavour", "spin", "top", and "bottom", all referencing properties of subatomic particles.