4 ms·

Are abstracts typically filled with this much editorial? I’m no climate science denier but adjectives like “sad” seem insanely out of place in something like th

by tjr225 5y ago

Are abstracts typically filled with this much editorial? I’m no climate science denier but adjectives like “sad” seem insanely out of place in something like this…

kingkawn 5y ago
it is sad that we have done this to the world.
- tjr225 5y ago
  I agree; but is sadness any sort of scientific measure? Does it have any place in an abstract or a scientific study? I don’t think so. It seems weird to me.
  - kingkawn 5y ago
    There is no gain from rejecting different types of truth that don’t adhere to a single way of producing it.
  - ppqqrr 5y ago
    It’s a three-letter glimpse into what motivated these scientists to write the paper; I think we can acknowledge it and move on without losing sight of scientific rigor.
  - kuhewa 5y ago
    Tt appears to be a pretty sound review of evidence, and then a discussion and conclusions section where the results of the review are interpreted and implications are discussed. Seeing "sad" appear in an abstract is sort of unusual. However in the discussion in the review the arguments about morality etc are a bit more sophisticated, but I reckon it isn't too odd to have a value claim on the implications of the review being unfortunate, since they have real implications for human wellbeing. If the same sentiment was couched in normal amounts of academic jargon, you would likely not have noticed.
- timbit42 5y ago
  True, but don't worry. Sooner or later we'll kill ourselves off and mother nature will spring back to life.
zenithd 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
37 5y ago
I agree with this, and not sure why it is being downvoted. Another small part that jumps out: >We take issue with these stances I didn't realize science was about 'taking stances', I thought it was about conducting specific methodical experiments in an unbiased way to reach an unknown conclusion. (edit: something something appeal to emotion)
- adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
  Most of science is looking at a bunch of evidence and hypotheses ("stances") and seeing which are least improbable given the available evidence.
- pvg 5y ago
  Taking issue with the positions of others is a perfectly normal part of the scientific process. I am not sure where your definition of 'what science is about' comes from but it can't possibly be true, if you think about it for a bit. As to the votes, there's a specific guideline about that kind of comment: Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.
  - 37 5y ago
    >Taking issue with the positions of others is a perfectly normal part of the scientific process. Sure. I'm sure Copernicus took issue with the earth-centric position of the church. We all know who was correct in the end. I'm just saying that evoking emotion in the abstract of a paper seems a bit of a reach. >can't possibly be true, if you think about it for a bit. Hmm. I said that I thought science was about conducting experiments in an unbiased way to come to a conclusion. Maybe I was really way off base. I will think about it a bit more. >As to the votes, there's a specific guideline about that kind of comment I wasn't aware of this, so thanks for the input. I'm still not sure it applies here though. tjr225 was asking a question about the editorializing or emotion or whatever behind the abstract in a paper. I don't think its just picking something provocative to complain about, I think it's a legitimate concern about the infusion of emotion into science.

by tjr225 5y ago

Are abstracts typically filled with this much editorial? I’m no climate science denier but adjectives like “sad” seem insanely out of place in something like this…

kingkawn 5y ago

it is sad that we have done this to the world.

tjr225 5y ago
I agree; but is sadness any sort of scientific measure? Does it have any place in an abstract or a scientific study? I don’t think so. It seems weird to me.
- kingkawn 5y ago
  There is no gain from rejecting different types of truth that don’t adhere to a single way of producing it.
- ppqqrr 5y ago
  It’s a three-letter glimpse into what motivated these scientists to write the paper; I think we can acknowledge it and move on without losing sight of scientific rigor.
- kuhewa 5y ago
  Tt appears to be a pretty sound review of evidence, and then a discussion and conclusions section where the results of the review are interpreted and implications are discussed. Seeing "sad" appear in an abstract is sort of unusual. However in the discussion in the review the arguments about morality etc are a bit more sophisticated, but I reckon it isn't too odd to have a value claim on the implications of the review being unfortunate, since they have real implications for human wellbeing. If the same sentiment was couched in normal amounts of academic jargon, you would likely not have noticed.
timbit42 5y ago
True, but don't worry. Sooner or later we'll kill ourselves off and mother nature will spring back to life.

zenithd 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

37 5y ago

I agree with this, and not sure why it is being downvoted. Another small part that jumps out: >We take issue with these stances I didn't realize science was about 'taking stances', I thought it was about conducting specific methodical experiments in an unbiased way to reach an unknown conclusion. (edit: something something appeal to emotion)

adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
Most of science is looking at a bunch of evidence and hypotheses ("stances") and seeing which are least improbable given the available evidence.
pvg 5y ago
Taking issue with the positions of others is a perfectly normal part of the scientific process. I am not sure where your definition of 'what science is about' comes from but it can't possibly be true, if you think about it for a bit. As to the votes, there's a specific guideline about that kind of comment: Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.
- 37 5y ago
  >Taking issue with the positions of others is a perfectly normal part of the scientific process. Sure. I'm sure Copernicus took issue with the earth-centric position of the church. We all know who was correct in the end. I'm just saying that evoking emotion in the abstract of a paper seems a bit of a reach. >can't possibly be true, if you think about it for a bit. Hmm. I said that I thought science was about conducting experiments in an unbiased way to come to a conclusion. Maybe I was really way off base. I will think about it a bit more. >As to the votes, there's a specific guideline about that kind of comment I wasn't aware of this, so thanks for the input. I'm still not sure it applies here though. tjr225 was asking a question about the editorializing or emotion or whatever behind the abstract in a paper. I don't think its just picking something provocative to complain about, I think it's a legitimate concern about the infusion of emotion into science.