5 ms·

> stop couching our barely-disguised political motivations in pedantry? While I'm also a little dubious as to this article's relevance to HN, nothing in the li

> stop couching our barely-disguised political motivations in pedantry? While I'm also a little dubious as to this article's relevance to HN, nothing in the linked article strikes me as "pedantry".

astrodust 9y ago
It's splitting hairs on an atomic level.
ajross 9y ago
What parts don't? The entire article is one technical digression after another, aimed solely to discredit the paper and its authors, without engaging on the one result that makes it notable. That's, like, the textbook definition of "pedantry".
- Someone 9y ago
  ""Pedantry: excessive concern with minor details and rules." The article could do without the (almost) personal attacks, but it (also) discredits the results and the logic in the paper that leads to the results. I don't think the details it focuses on (most importantly that the skeletons may have been mixed up and that we don't know what burial items mean) to do the discrediting are minor, nor do I think the concern with it is excessive.
- mnarayan01 9y ago
  The linked article raises four concerns: 1. It's not clear whether the skeleton goes with the grave -- The excavation was in the 19th century and there are various methodological concerns. 2. It's not clear that the graveyard was for "warriors" -- The number of bodies with serious injuries is low. 3. It's not clear that the grave was for someone of "high rank", particularly in as much as "high rank" modifies "warrior". 4. The paper gives short shrift to the work of language/text specialists. Notable in light of (2) and (3) above. How much each of these things is a problem is going to depend on deep factual information, but they are not indicative of "excessive concern with minor details and rules".
  - phaemon 9y ago
    I think there is a misunderstanding here that is causing people to talk past each other (and I think the Professor had the same misunderstanding). There seems to be the idea that paper is making the claims that the person in the grave was a) female and b) a warrior. However, they are actually only making claim A, that the person was female. The claim that the person was a warrior was made earlier by the archaeological team. So, if you think the paper is making both claims, then the professors criticisms seem valid, as they are unconvincing in establishing this was a warrior. However, if you know that they're only making one claim, the attacks on the window-dressing of this being a viking warrior appear totally pedantic (as it ignores the main claim entirely).
    - setrofim_ 9y ago
      You are right, the authors of the paper only claim that their results demonstrate a); they are, however, assuming b) based on previous studies. What the Professor is arguing, as I understand it, is that those previous studies do not necessarily warrant the assumption of b), and thus the paper's title "A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics" is misleading -- there has been a confirmation of "female", but not of "warrior". Something like "Skeleton, that some evidence points to being that of a warrior, was confirmed to be female"; but that's not as pithy or sensationalist. Those not reading the paper sufficiently carefully (or at all -- only limiting themselves to the title and the abstract) will end up drawing conclusions unjustified by the paper. Which, given the political implications, may be undesirable. [edit: grammar]
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - phaemon 9y ago
        In that case, surely the professor should be commenting on the original assessment, not any paper that accepts the published literature? I still reckon it's a misunderstanding. I don't know what the "political implications" means. I think I've missed something. Did Trump tweet about it or something? I don't know why this would have any political implications at all.
- justinhj 9y ago
  Excessive attention to detail in our day to day lives may be pedentary but if you're a professor of Viking studies writing a public article I don't think it's the right word for it
- lucozade 9y ago
  > without engaging on the one result that makes it notable. But that's her point. She, the author, doesn't have an issue with the DNA evidence that the body is female. What she has an issue with is the paper stepping beyond its bounds of expertise (in her view) and claiming the body is of a high ranking warrior. In making that claim it makes use of context that, as a professor of Viking studies, happens to be within her professional purview. TBH as a criticism of an academic paper by an academic, it being technically pedantic strikes me as a positive thing. Also, it's quite nice that she explicitly excludes herself from commentary on the DNA evidence due to lack of expertise. Not something you see a lot of.
  - microtherion 9y ago
    > the author doesn't have an issue with the DNA evidence that the body is female. The DNA evidence that the body whose bones were examined is female. Apparently, it's not entirely beyond dispute what bones were found in which grave.

> stop couching our barely-disguised political motivations in pedantry? While I'm also a little dubious as to this article's relevance to HN, nothing in the linked article strikes me as "pedantry".

astrodust 9y ago

It's splitting hairs on an atomic level.

ajross 9y ago

What parts don't? The entire article is one technical digression after another, aimed solely to discredit the paper and its authors, without engaging on the one result that makes it notable. That's, like, the textbook definition of "pedantry".

Someone 9y ago
""Pedantry: excessive concern with minor details and rules." The article could do without the (almost) personal attacks, but it (also) discredits the results and the logic in the paper that leads to the results. I don't think the details it focuses on (most importantly that the skeletons may have been mixed up and that we don't know what burial items mean) to do the discrediting are minor, nor do I think the concern with it is excessive.
mnarayan01 9y ago
The linked article raises four concerns: 1. It's not clear whether the skeleton goes with the grave -- The excavation was in the 19th century and there are various methodological concerns. 2. It's not clear that the graveyard was for "warriors" -- The number of bodies with serious injuries is low. 3. It's not clear that the grave was for someone of "high rank", particularly in as much as "high rank" modifies "warrior". 4. The paper gives short shrift to the work of language/text specialists. Notable in light of (2) and (3) above. How much each of these things is a problem is going to depend on deep factual information, but they are not indicative of "excessive concern with minor details and rules".
- phaemon 9y ago
  I think there is a misunderstanding here that is causing people to talk past each other (and I think the Professor had the same misunderstanding). There seems to be the idea that paper is making the claims that the person in the grave was a) female and b) a warrior. However, they are actually only making claim A, that the person was female. The claim that the person was a warrior was made earlier by the archaeological team. So, if you think the paper is making both claims, then the professors criticisms seem valid, as they are unconvincing in establishing this was a warrior. However, if you know that they're only making one claim, the attacks on the window-dressing of this being a viking warrior appear totally pedantic (as it ignores the main claim entirely).
  - setrofim_ 9y ago
    You are right, the authors of the paper only claim that their results demonstrate a); they are, however, assuming b) based on previous studies. What the Professor is arguing, as I understand it, is that those previous studies do not necessarily warrant the assumption of b), and thus the paper's title "A female Viking warrior confirmed by genomics" is misleading -- there has been a confirmation of "female", but not of "warrior". Something like "Skeleton, that some evidence points to being that of a warrior, was confirmed to be female"; but that's not as pithy or sensationalist. Those not reading the paper sufficiently carefully (or at all -- only limiting themselves to the title and the abstract) will end up drawing conclusions unjustified by the paper. Which, given the political implications, may be undesirable. [edit: grammar]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - phaemon 9y ago
      In that case, surely the professor should be commenting on the original assessment, not any paper that accepts the published literature? I still reckon it's a misunderstanding. I don't know what the "political implications" means. I think I've missed something. Did Trump tweet about it or something? I don't know why this would have any political implications at all.
justinhj 9y ago
Excessive attention to detail in our day to day lives may be pedentary but if you're a professor of Viking studies writing a public article I don't think it's the right word for it
lucozade 9y ago
> without engaging on the one result that makes it notable. But that's her point. She, the author, doesn't have an issue with the DNA evidence that the body is female. What she has an issue with is the paper stepping beyond its bounds of expertise (in her view) and claiming the body is of a high ranking warrior. In making that claim it makes use of context that, as a professor of Viking studies, happens to be within her professional purview. TBH as a criticism of an academic paper by an academic, it being technically pedantic strikes me as a positive thing. Also, it's quite nice that she explicitly excludes herself from commentary on the DNA evidence due to lack of expertise. Not something you see a lot of.
- microtherion 9y ago
  > the author doesn't have an issue with the DNA evidence that the body is female. The DNA evidence that the body whose bones were examined is female. Apparently, it's not entirely beyond dispute what bones were found in which grave.