3 ms·
> As a scientist, but not a technical expert in this field, I felt that this article read pretty straight forward. Though I will admit that there could be added
by kerkeslager 7y ago
> As a scientist, but not a technical expert in this field, I felt that this article read pretty straight forward. Though I will admit that there could be added clarity for a more general audience (pretty much all work can).
Yeah. My concern isn't that the meaning wasn't clear. My concern was that by focusing on the semantics of the jargon, it comes across as combative and alienates readers over something which is ultimately not important.
I think you and I are at a point of understanding where we're able to receive this feedback on the terminology and correct our own usage very quickly. I've certainly taken note.
- godelski 7y agoThen I mischaracterized your critique. I do think the author is combative. This is an unfortunately common problem in science discussions, but I think within the community is has become normalized to such a point that anyone that isn't a junior isn't really put off from it. I do think this is a thing the community can work on in general that would help bring people in (imo, everyone should be doing "science").
- kerkeslager 7y agoWell, more than one person hasn't understood my critique, which indicates that the problem may have been my communication. :)
- godelski 7y agoWell we're chimps that can barely communicate with one another even when we speak the same language. We'll always have room to improve. (considering that you're the top comment, I think more people accurately characterized your message. Comments are more likely to happen with a mischaracterization and can be selection bais)