4 ms·

I'm happy Cormac does this work. I'm even happier that he pointed out a few rules to break. This time invested to improve science writing by one of our greatest

I'm happy Cormac does this work. I'm even happier that he pointed out a few rules to break. This time invested to improve science writing by one of our greatest living writers is a friendly/magnanimous gesture from a discipline that is on the rocks. I'm not sure if Cormac teaches out of necessity or the goodness of his heart, but count me even more despondent if he needs the salary despite his commercial and critical success. Nothing can single-handedly fix scientific (or technical, or academic) writing. Reading your own writing like a stranger is harder than reading your own code like a stranger. Aside from a few polymaths, the best technical/science writing takes careful, understanding partnerships. That said, I think the bigger problem for science writing is how miserably disconnected pop-press coverage is from what is morally justifiable given the research design and results. Some of this is the fault of the scientists (and their reviewers), who don't always appear to see the limitations of their own results. More often, it seems to be about poorly-paid writers churning out clickbait from journal articles. Unless (or until) we see fit to ensure our scientists (and inventors, and developers, and economists, ...) are polymaths capable of communicating their work lucidly, I think there's a lot of forsaken social value. If it's worth giving a grant to study or build something, it's worth bolting a communication budget onto (not into) the grant to make sure the work is understood.

defen 7y ago
> I'm not sure if Cormac teaches out of necessity or the goodness of his heart, but count me even more despondent if he needs the salary despite his commercial and critical success. He's always been indifferent or even hostile toward financial success. He also doesn't really "teach" in a formal way - he just prefers hanging around with scientists, and they try to absorb his knowledge. McCarthy has never shown interest in a steady job, a trait that seems to have annoyed both his ex-wives. "We lived in total poverty," says the second, Annie DeLisle, now a restaurateur in Florida. For nearly eight years they lived in a dairy barn outside Knoxville. "We were bathing in the lake," she says with some nostalgia. "Someone would call up and offer him $2,000 to come speak at a university about his books. And he would tell them that everything he had to say was there on the page. So we would eat beans for another week." https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/17/specials/mccarthy-venom.html https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/17/s...
thanatropism 7y ago
> Unless (or until) we see fit to ensure our scientists (and inventors, and developers, and economists, ...) are polymaths Well, are we going to (a) increase barriers to entry to the scientific professions until most scientists are also poets and warrior sages, or (b) punish bad paper writers with mandatory writing camps (that set back their scientific agendas), or (c) ??? Science papers are mostly made to be read by scientists.
- abathur 7y ago
  You forgot to quote the part where I didn't advocate for harsh authoritarian barriers or punishments for non-poet scientists: > ... capable of communicating their work lucidly, I think there's a lot of forsaken social value.
  - thanatropism 7y ago
    Which leaves us option (a): bar bad communicators from the scientific profession.
    - abathur 7y ago
      Is there any defensible reason you're determined to create an authoritarian fetish out of my assertion that scientific research worth funding in the first place is worth bundling with a communications budget to ensure it is appropriately understood? You're tilting at windmills, here.

defen 7y ago

> I'm not sure if Cormac teaches out of necessity or the goodness of his heart, but count me even more despondent if he needs the salary despite his commercial and critical success. He's always been indifferent or even hostile toward financial success. He also doesn't really "teach" in a formal way - he just prefers hanging around with scientists, and they try to absorb his knowledge. McCarthy has never shown interest in a steady job, a trait that seems to have annoyed both his ex-wives. "We lived in total poverty," says the second, Annie DeLisle, now a restaurateur in Florida. For nearly eight years they lived in a dairy barn outside Knoxville. "We were bathing in the lake," she says with some nostalgia. "Someone would call up and offer him $2,000 to come speak at a university about his books. And he would tell them that everything he had to say was there on the page. So we would eat beans for another week." https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/17/specials/mccarthy-venom.html https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/17/s...

thanatropism 7y ago

> Unless (or until) we see fit to ensure our scientists (and inventors, and developers, and economists, ...) are polymaths Well, are we going to (a) increase barriers to entry to the scientific professions until most scientists are also poets and warrior sages, or (b) punish bad paper writers with mandatory writing camps (that set back their scientific agendas), or (c) ??? Science papers are mostly made to be read by scientists.

abathur 7y ago
You forgot to quote the part where I didn't advocate for harsh authoritarian barriers or punishments for non-poet scientists: > ... capable of communicating their work lucidly, I think there's a lot of forsaken social value.
- thanatropism 7y ago
  Which leaves us option (a): bar bad communicators from the scientific profession.
  - abathur 7y ago
    Is there any defensible reason you're determined to create an authoritarian fetish out of my assertion that scientific research worth funding in the first place is worth bundling with a communications budget to ensure it is appropriately understood? You're tilting at windmills, here.