3 ms·

> To use that word from standard vocabulary to describe something that just happens to use the same word as some utterly esoteric mathematical definition is mis

> To use that word from standard vocabulary to describe something that just happens to use the same word as some utterly esoteric mathematical definition is misleading at best. So are we trying to raise or lower the quality of public discourse? If a journalist uses a technical term in a headline, and then goes on to explain what the term means in the article, how is that not fine? It sounds like you only want journalists talking at a eighth grade level. Why don't you try to re-write the findings yourself then? I think you'll find it difficult to say the least. Your first obstacle might be finding a better word to describe the mathematical shape of the structures other than 'dimension'. That's what mathematicians use, why can't journalists use it too?

matthewdgreen 7y ago
I don’t know about re-writing the findings, but if I was to do so, I’d start with this statement from early in the article: “We're used to thinking of the world from a 3-D perspective,” Here 3-D clearly refers to our three spatial dimensions, and the article clearly abuses this definition of the term to contrast with the totally different meaning of “dimension” that is to come. It’s fine to use non-intuitive mathematical definitions in a work for a non-expert audience, but you must clearly define them from the start — and not lead the audience astray by deliberately referencing the most common definition to form a contrast at the start of your piece.
aeternum 7y ago
Journalists of all people should understand the connotation of words. The title was likely picked to be confusing on purpose as click-bait. Misleading headlines lower the quality of public discourse.
- fao_ 7y ago
  > Misleading headlines lower the quality of public discourse. Misleading headlines only affect people who have not read the article. People who have not read the article, or can't bother to read the article, are essentially incapable of giving a proper high-quality response to the article. I don't see how you can lower the quality of discourse any further than someone commenting on an article that they didn't read.
  - aeternum 7y ago
    Time is a valuable commodity, it is disingenuous to trick people into reading articles through the use of clickbait headlines. The article itself also continues to conflate the definitions of dimension by referring to 3-D. When little timmy draws a star on his paper we don't say "congrats on your 5 dimensional drawing".
    - fao_ 7y ago
      > Time is a valuable commodity, Right, so don't waste other people's time by commenting on an article that you haven't properly read.
shkkmo 7y ago
> If a journalist uses a technical term in a headline, and then goes on to explain what the term means in the article, how is that not fine? I don't wee where the term is ever very clearly explained, the best I see is: >> the number of neurons in a clique would lead to its size as a high-dimensional geometric object (a mathematical dimensional concept, not a space-time one) It is a "network topology" concept, the distinction between "mathematical" and "space-time" is nonsensical. > That's what mathematicians use, why can't journalists use it too? Not only is the term poorly explained, but it also appears to be used incorrectly. I don't think it is correct to talk about these structures being created in 11 dimensions, but that as "with 11 dimensions", "having a dimension of 11" or "being 11-dimensional" (which is how the term is used in the paper). > It sounds like you only want journalists talking at a eighth grade level. The problem is that the article is talking at about a 8th grade level using collegiate terms that it doesn't take the time to explain at at an 8th grade level. This doesn't help to elevate public discourse, it just sows misunderstanding. > Why don't you try to re-write the findings yourself then? I think you'll find it difficult to say the least. This seems needlessly combative. In terms of accurate and responsible reporting of this science, I think the article that the author cites and paraphrases heavily is much more well written: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-06/f-bbt060617.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-06/f-bbt060617....
snaky 7y ago
> If a journalist uses a technical term in a headline, and then goes on to explain what the term means in the article, how is that not fine? If a marketing team uses a financial term in a commercial with an asterisk, and then goes on to explain what the term with an asterisk means in the actual 117 pages long financial contract this commercial is trying to sell, how is that not fine?

matthewdgreen 7y ago

I don’t know about re-writing the findings, but if I was to do so, I’d start with this statement from early in the article: “We're used to thinking of the world from a 3-D perspective,” Here 3-D clearly refers to our three spatial dimensions, and the article clearly abuses this definition of the term to contrast with the totally different meaning of “dimension” that is to come. It’s fine to use non-intuitive mathematical definitions in a work for a non-expert audience, but you must clearly define them from the start — and not lead the audience astray by deliberately referencing the most common definition to form a contrast at the start of your piece.

aeternum 7y ago

Journalists of all people should understand the connotation of words. The title was likely picked to be confusing on purpose as click-bait. Misleading headlines lower the quality of public discourse.

fao_ 7y ago
> Misleading headlines lower the quality of public discourse. Misleading headlines only affect people who have not read the article. People who have not read the article, or can't bother to read the article, are essentially incapable of giving a proper high-quality response to the article. I don't see how you can lower the quality of discourse any further than someone commenting on an article that they didn't read.
- aeternum 7y ago
  Time is a valuable commodity, it is disingenuous to trick people into reading articles through the use of clickbait headlines. The article itself also continues to conflate the definitions of dimension by referring to 3-D. When little timmy draws a star on his paper we don't say "congrats on your 5 dimensional drawing".
  - fao_ 7y ago
    > Time is a valuable commodity, Right, so don't waste other people's time by commenting on an article that you haven't properly read.

shkkmo 7y ago

> If a journalist uses a technical term in a headline, and then goes on to explain what the term means in the article, how is that not fine? I don't wee where the term is ever very clearly explained, the best I see is: >> the number of neurons in a clique would lead to its size as a high-dimensional geometric object (a mathematical dimensional concept, not a space-time one) It is a "network topology" concept, the distinction between "mathematical" and "space-time" is nonsensical. > That's what mathematicians use, why can't journalists use it too? Not only is the term poorly explained, but it also appears to be used incorrectly. I don't think it is correct to talk about these structures being created in 11 dimensions, but that as "with 11 dimensions", "having a dimension of 11" or "being 11-dimensional" (which is how the term is used in the paper). > It sounds like you only want journalists talking at a eighth grade level. The problem is that the article is talking at about a 8th grade level using collegiate terms that it doesn't take the time to explain at at an 8th grade level. This doesn't help to elevate public discourse, it just sows misunderstanding. > Why don't you try to re-write the findings yourself then? I think you'll find it difficult to say the least. This seems needlessly combative. In terms of accurate and responsible reporting of this science, I think the article that the author cites and paraphrases heavily is much more well written: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-06/f-bbt060617.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-06/f-bbt060617....

snaky 7y ago

> If a journalist uses a technical term in a headline, and then goes on to explain what the term means in the article, how is that not fine? If a marketing team uses a financial term in a commercial with an asterisk, and then goes on to explain what the term with an asterisk means in the actual 117 pages long financial contract this commercial is trying to sell, how is that not fine?