5 ms·

The simplest explanation is that we've built up large bodies of specialist knowledge that can't just be reduced to "Rock falls down, gravity. huh." Take biolog

The simplest explanation is that we've built up large bodies of specialist knowledge that can't just be reduced to "Rock falls down, gravity. huh." Take biology, and look at this depiction of metabolic pathways: https://img.scoop.it/B6Bp6lXGshGZEPRnL8_P4YXXXL4j3HpexhjNOf_P3YmryPKwJ94QGRtDb3Sbc6KY https://img.scoop.it/B6Bp6lXGshGZEPRnL8_P4YXXXL4j3HpexhjNOf_... How do you bring that complexity down so that someone coming out of highschool can avoid having to learn a lot about it first, and still transmit something useful to other specialists? Otherwise, what we'd get is another episode of NOVA

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gravypod 9y ago
I have been told that a good paper is simple and concise but the best paper passes the "Norwegian Test" whereby we suppose that if you were handed only the abstract and plots in your paper you could understand the entire development presented within the paper. The complexities reality contain do not necessitate the complexity of the details or developments as presented by a single paper. I've always favored summary books assembled from smaller papers as opposed to large and extremely complicated papers.
- ahartmetz 9y ago
  Survey papers are worth mentioning. They are somewhere between original research papers and textbooks. For these, readability does still seem to be important, so if there is no textbook, you'll want to start with a survey paper.
ahartmetz 9y ago
Give a big picture overview, categorize similar things, focus (omit unnecessary detail), mention similarities to known systems, don't assume highly specialized knowledge just to save a little space - the usual techniques to explain things! Edit: If you look at a text, you can easily see whether or not the author can or wants to make themselves clear. Papers from after roughly 1980 just don't give that impression anymore. You also know the difference between good and bad software documentation when you see it, if that is closer to your area of expertise. I think your explanation is plausible, but wrong.
- SubiculumCode 9y ago
  That is fine for reviews. I 'm not sure that is appropriate or even possible in empirical reports.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

gravypod 9y ago

I have been told that a good paper is simple and concise but the best paper passes the "Norwegian Test" whereby we suppose that if you were handed only the abstract and plots in your paper you could understand the entire development presented within the paper. The complexities reality contain do not necessitate the complexity of the details or developments as presented by a single paper. I've always favored summary books assembled from smaller papers as opposed to large and extremely complicated papers.

ahartmetz 9y ago
Survey papers are worth mentioning. They are somewhere between original research papers and textbooks. For these, readability does still seem to be important, so if there is no textbook, you'll want to start with a survey paper.

ahartmetz 9y ago

Give a big picture overview, categorize similar things, focus (omit unnecessary detail), mention similarities to known systems, don't assume highly specialized knowledge just to save a little space - the usual techniques to explain things! Edit: If you look at a text, you can easily see whether or not the author can or wants to make themselves clear. Papers from after roughly 1980 just don't give that impression anymore. You also know the difference between good and bad software documentation when you see it, if that is closer to your area of expertise. I think your explanation is plausible, but wrong.

SubiculumCode 9y ago
That is fine for reviews. I 'm not sure that is appropriate or even possible in empirical reports.