4 ms·

What might be surprising for the authors might not be surprising to others.

by spion 5y ago

harles 5y ago
It also dates the paper - even if it was generally surprising 10 years ago, it won’t be today. Although I doubt papers with this language are standing the test of time anyways.
cgriswald 5y ago
When someone writes, “Surprisingly, …,” they are expressing their own surprise. It is equivalent to “To our surprise…,” except it is more succinct. Absent other context, there’s no implication that anyone else is surprised or should be surprised.
- spion 5y ago
  It paints an additional layer of scientific precision / courtesy / modesty, IMO. Not the style of all scientists, but its very common.
  - cgriswald 5y ago
    The “painting” is taking place either in additional context or in assumptions the reader is bringing into the interpretation. It is not present in the bare text. It’s an ungenerous interpretation to suggest that people using “Surprisingly,” are immodest/imprecise/etc.. I could as easily hold the interpretation that “To our surprise…,” is the author trading my time in an attempt to get himself some goodwill from readers. However, that would be equally ungenerous.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - spion 5y ago
      How is "to our surprise" trading your time compared to "Surprisingly"? Is it because it contains more words? The modesty here is about saying "We're not sure if this is generally surprising for everyone, but we were surprised". "Surprisingly" is a bit less conservative to me, its more of a "We think this is generally surprising for the field". I would personally use it only if I knew something has already surprised multiple research groups
      - cgriswald 5y ago
        The point isn’t how, but that the idea isn’t in the words. If I held that view, I’d be bringing in assumptions into the words that aren’t actually there in the words. This is true even if the author actually had those thoughts. The words simply don’t carry that information.
        spion 5y ago
        Human language is a social construct, and words carry whatever information users have decided to assign to it. Looks like quite a few language users disagree with you
- medstrom 5y ago
  Yes, you and people like you would read it as that they are expressing their own surprise, because you have a firm mental model that surprise resides only in the mind of the observer. But quite a few people also allow for a pseudo-objective meaning, as in "many/most people would find this surprising". Because the author may or may not be like you, it's hard to know which meaning the author intended, so if you want to communicate clearly it's best not to use the word "surprisingly" at all.
  - cgriswald 5y ago
    An author’s intent doesn’t change what an author actually said, nor does it mean we should assume it means something different. “Surprise” in any form should usually not be used, but if it is, the two phrases are still equivalent unless the context dictates otherwise or the author makes his use explicit.
    - medstrom 5y ago
      >An author’s intent doesn’t change what an author actually said This is an odd view of communication. It works for whole stories, e.g. you can decouple Heinlein from his books and claim that The Moon is a Harsh Mistress primarily says something other than Heinlein actually had in mind, artistically speaking, but it's a very odd stance for single words. Communication is two-way, it has everything to do with both the speaker and listener. Words don't have any meaning except for what the speaker and listener assign to them. There is no "what the author actually said", there is only what they intended to say (and how it was interpreted). In the role of listener/reader, your whole job is to figure out what the author intended. Otherwise I'm not sure we agree on what reading even is.
      - cgriswald 5y ago
        We don’t have two-way communication or any context to understand the intention. We have “To our surprise…,” and “Surprisingly,….” These phrases in the context of writing, absent other context, have the same meaning. This isn’t really an opinion. An author’s intention cannot be inferred without additional context. So no, the author’s intention per se does not matter in the context of this conversation. Extending that to mean it never matters isn’t at all what I said.

What might be surprising for the authors might not be surprising to others.

by spion 5y ago

What might be surprising for the authors might not be surprising to others.

It also dates the paper - even if it was generally surprising 10 years ago, it won’t be today. Although I doubt papers with this language are standing the test of time anyways.

cgriswald 5y ago

When someone writes, “Surprisingly, …,” they are expressing their own surprise. It is equivalent to “To our surprise…,” except it is more succinct. Absent other context, there’s no implication that anyone else is surprised or should be surprised.

spion 5y ago
It paints an additional layer of scientific precision / courtesy / modesty, IMO. Not the style of all scientists, but its very common.
- cgriswald 5y ago
  The “painting” is taking place either in additional context or in assumptions the reader is bringing into the interpretation. It is not present in the bare text. It’s an ungenerous interpretation to suggest that people using “Surprisingly,” are immodest/imprecise/etc.. I could as easily hold the interpretation that “To our surprise…,” is the author trading my time in an attempt to get himself some goodwill from readers. However, that would be equally ungenerous.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - spion 5y ago
    How is "to our surprise" trading your time compared to "Surprisingly"? Is it because it contains more words? The modesty here is about saying "We're not sure if this is generally surprising for everyone, but we were surprised". "Surprisingly" is a bit less conservative to me, its more of a "We think this is generally surprising for the field". I would personally use it only if I knew something has already surprised multiple research groups
    - cgriswald 5y ago
      The point isn’t how, but that the idea isn’t in the words. If I held that view, I’d be bringing in assumptions into the words that aren’t actually there in the words. This is true even if the author actually had those thoughts. The words simply don’t carry that information.
      - spion 5y ago
        Human language is a social construct, and words carry whatever information users have decided to assign to it. Looks like quite a few language users disagree with you
medstrom 5y ago
Yes, you and people like you would read it as that they are expressing their own surprise, because you have a firm mental model that surprise resides only in the mind of the observer. But quite a few people also allow for a pseudo-objective meaning, as in "many/most people would find this surprising". Because the author may or may not be like you, it's hard to know which meaning the author intended, so if you want to communicate clearly it's best not to use the word "surprisingly" at all.
- cgriswald 5y ago
  An author’s intent doesn’t change what an author actually said, nor does it mean we should assume it means something different. “Surprise” in any form should usually not be used, but if it is, the two phrases are still equivalent unless the context dictates otherwise or the author makes his use explicit.
  - medstrom 5y ago
    >An author’s intent doesn’t change what an author actually said This is an odd view of communication. It works for whole stories, e.g. you can decouple Heinlein from his books and claim that The Moon is a Harsh Mistress primarily says something other than Heinlein actually had in mind, artistically speaking, but it's a very odd stance for single words. Communication is two-way, it has everything to do with both the speaker and listener. Words don't have any meaning except for what the speaker and listener assign to them. There is no "what the author actually said", there is only what they intended to say (and how it was interpreted). In the role of listener/reader, your whole job is to figure out what the author intended. Otherwise I'm not sure we agree on what reading even is.
    - cgriswald 5y ago
      We don’t have two-way communication or any context to understand the intention. We have “To our surprise…,” and “Surprisingly,….” These phrases in the context of writing, absent other context, have the same meaning. This isn’t really an opinion. An author’s intention cannot be inferred without additional context. So no, the author’s intention per se does not matter in the context of this conversation. Extending that to mean it never matters isn’t at all what I said.