4 ms·

There are some legitimate complaints here, but the point about the paper being well-written seems weird. Would the author prefer the discussion of such an impor

There are some legitimate complaints here, but the point about the paper being well-written seems weird. Would the author prefer the discussion of such an important topic be poorly organized and perfunctory? Also, using "we" is standard scientific practice, not some bluff.

zymhan 6y ago
I think they bring that up as one of the many ways the original author might disguise their amateurism. It's definitely not a bad thing to write "well", but faking an authoritative voice is a common problem.
- spekcular 6y ago
  The use of "we" is not "faking an authoritative voice," it's just a standard feature of a certain kind of formal writing. I'd be happy to pillory the paper for being bad, but let's not fault the author for at least conforming to standard conventions and making it easy to read and dissect. Waggoner's article is actually more bizarre to me on the second read. The claim does not appear to be that the paper bad, just that interested, non-credentialed amateurs don't get to have (public) opinions, no matter how well-reasoned. While I'm highly skeptical of armchair epistemology a priori, there are plenty of criticisms of the (un)linked article that are more interesting and educational than pointing out it's written by someone without a PhD in epistemology.
  - vulcan01 6y ago
    > interested, non-credentialed amateurs don't get to have (public) opinions, no matter how well-reasoned I don't think that's his intended meaning: "There isn’t enough time to evaluate everything on the merits" from the article.
- BiosElement 6y ago
  By problem, you mean a requirement for proper form in an academic or professional paper. This was drilled into me time and time again in college, you 'have' to write in such a manner.
DanBC 6y ago
> The tone was authoritative and confident, the author didn’t prominently disclose their lack of expertise If the author had said "I don't know what I'm talking about, but here's what I reckon" people would have spent a lot less time reading and debunking it.
- praptak 6y ago
  The point of TFA is that reading and debunking is a precious resource, therefore it is disingenuous to present your work in a way that encourages more reading and debunking that it actually deserves.
vikramkr 6y ago
It can be well written and organized without coming off as authoritative and putting on the airs of academic credentials. At the very least, they could say upfront that they are not an economist and have done the best they can in interpreting data etc, but acknowledging that there might be technical errors or misunderstandings that come from not having worked in the field.
- spekcular 6y ago
  With one click on "About" you can find out the author is "a software / site reliability engineer based out of Santa Barbara, California" and does not list any academic credentials. This seems extremely transparent to me.
  - vikramkr 6y ago
    Asking to click through to other pages to see is not transparent. Transparent is at the top of the document before you read it, knowing that most people will not do the extra click through and will rather just read the summary and move on with their day. It's hard enough to get people to click through pages on a website when you want them to.
AllegedAlec 6y ago
> Also, using "we" is standard scientific practice, not some bluff. No. The standard practice is to use passive forms. EDIT: I've been informed by the people responding that passive form is now considered archaic, so apparently using first pronouns is now acceptable. This must've changed since I did my research.
- timerol 6y ago
  The journal Nature respectfully disagrees: https://www.nature.com/nature-research/for-authors/write https://www.nature.com/nature-research/for-authors/write > Nature journals prefer authors to write in the active voice ("we performed the experiment...") as experience has shown that readers find concepts and results to be conveyed more clearly if written directly.
- dekhn 6y ago
  This is.. a bit historical. While the passive voice was recommended in the past, most journals and advisors recommend using active voice in papers now.
  - AllegedAlec 6y ago
    Thanks for the update. Back when I did my studies (less than a decade ago) I was told, and all papers were also written, passively.
- tzs 6y ago
  I took a look at a few random recent papers at arxiv.org, in physics, biology, math, and economics. They all used "we". Wikipedia says it is discourage in the social sciences, though, because "it fails to distinguish between sole authorship and co-authorship" [1]. I'm curious now why it is so important to distinguish between sole authorship and co-authorship via writing style. If you are reading the paper itself, a glance at the author list will tell you that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosism

zymhan 6y ago

I think they bring that up as one of the many ways the original author might disguise their amateurism. It's definitely not a bad thing to write "well", but faking an authoritative voice is a common problem.

spekcular 6y ago
The use of "we" is not "faking an authoritative voice," it's just a standard feature of a certain kind of formal writing. I'd be happy to pillory the paper for being bad, but let's not fault the author for at least conforming to standard conventions and making it easy to read and dissect. Waggoner's article is actually more bizarre to me on the second read. The claim does not appear to be that the paper bad, just that interested, non-credentialed amateurs don't get to have (public) opinions, no matter how well-reasoned. While I'm highly skeptical of armchair epistemology a priori, there are plenty of criticisms of the (un)linked article that are more interesting and educational than pointing out it's written by someone without a PhD in epistemology.
- vulcan01 6y ago
  > interested, non-credentialed amateurs don't get to have (public) opinions, no matter how well-reasoned I don't think that's his intended meaning: "There isn’t enough time to evaluate everything on the merits" from the article.
BiosElement 6y ago
By problem, you mean a requirement for proper form in an academic or professional paper. This was drilled into me time and time again in college, you 'have' to write in such a manner.

DanBC 6y ago

> The tone was authoritative and confident, the author didn’t prominently disclose their lack of expertise If the author had said "I don't know what I'm talking about, but here's what I reckon" people would have spent a lot less time reading and debunking it.

praptak 6y ago
The point of TFA is that reading and debunking is a precious resource, therefore it is disingenuous to present your work in a way that encourages more reading and debunking that it actually deserves.

vikramkr 6y ago

It can be well written and organized without coming off as authoritative and putting on the airs of academic credentials. At the very least, they could say upfront that they are not an economist and have done the best they can in interpreting data etc, but acknowledging that there might be technical errors or misunderstandings that come from not having worked in the field.

spekcular 6y ago
With one click on "About" you can find out the author is "a software / site reliability engineer based out of Santa Barbara, California" and does not list any academic credentials. This seems extremely transparent to me.
- vikramkr 6y ago
  Asking to click through to other pages to see is not transparent. Transparent is at the top of the document before you read it, knowing that most people will not do the extra click through and will rather just read the summary and move on with their day. It's hard enough to get people to click through pages on a website when you want them to.

AllegedAlec 6y ago

> Also, using "we" is standard scientific practice, not some bluff. No. The standard practice is to use passive forms. EDIT: I've been informed by the people responding that passive form is now considered archaic, so apparently using first pronouns is now acceptable. This must've changed since I did my research.

timerol 6y ago
The journal Nature respectfully disagrees: https://www.nature.com/nature-research/for-authors/write https://www.nature.com/nature-research/for-authors/write > Nature journals prefer authors to write in the active voice ("we performed the experiment...") as experience has shown that readers find concepts and results to be conveyed more clearly if written directly.
dekhn 6y ago
This is.. a bit historical. While the passive voice was recommended in the past, most journals and advisors recommend using active voice in papers now.
- AllegedAlec 6y ago
  Thanks for the update. Back when I did my studies (less than a decade ago) I was told, and all papers were also written, passively.
tzs 6y ago
I took a look at a few random recent papers at arxiv.org, in physics, biology, math, and economics. They all used "we". Wikipedia says it is discourage in the social sciences, though, because "it fails to distinguish between sole authorship and co-authorship" [1]. I'm curious now why it is so important to distinguish between sole authorship and co-authorship via writing style. If you are reading the paper itself, a glance at the author list will tell you that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosism