4 ms·

Interesting language analysis, but I disagree with the conclusion. Authors merely stating "conclude" or "determine" instead "believe" or "feel" doesn't prove th

Interesting language analysis, but I disagree with the conclusion. Authors merely stating "conclude" or "determine" instead "believe" or "feel" doesn't prove they actually were any more or less rational or logical. The latter use could be more truthful to ones internal thought process. [If I write "I believe <blah blah>" because I believe something and state the reasons why I believe something, it is probably more informative than the output produced if I believe <blah blah>, then search Google for some random authoritative looking sources that say something that superficially matches what I want to say, and then write "these authoritative sources conclude <blah blah>"]. The observation indicates that popularity of some turn of phrase and "key words" over another have changed over time, which is interesting. But for determining how the actual "rationality" of content has changed, one should pick some set of random articles from different periods and actually analyze structure of arguments presented.

civilized 5y ago
Yeah, maybe the outward pretense of rationality was more important in decades past. In my experience reading scientific papers, "we conclude" is just a pretentious old-timey way to say "I think". It never actually meant anything more rigorous, it was just the norm to write more pretentiously and inflate the certainty of conclusions. We've been greatly humbled by being wrong over and over in recent decades. Maybe that has driven people to be less confident and stop presenting their thoughts as inevitable rational conclusions. Another illustration of the weakness of their data interpretation -- the figure shows use of the word "data" has declined in the past 20 years. Has actual use of data declined over this period? Quite the opposite, surely. I think (haha) this last point is actually quite revealing and strongly supports the "decreasing pretension" interpretation of the paper's word use trend charts. Maybe people stopped saying "the data says" over and over in a crude attempt to box the reader into submission.
- scsilver 5y ago
  It's hard for me to appreciate an argument that we were more rational during a time of religious dominance, the last 2000 or so years. We've been greatly humbled by being wrong over and over in recent decades. Maybe that has driven people to be less confident and stop presenting their thoughts as inevitable rational conclusions. This resonates with me. We are more able to verify our assertions, quicker, faster, more accurately and are more hesitant to make bold claims. I also think we have a bit of division of specialization going on, where the world keeps turning if everyone is competent in their specialty, allowing our personal, unprofessional, side to act more irrationally without as much consequence as in the past. Ultimately it's really hard for me to believe that as we spread education and opportunity to the 8 billion people of the world, we are somehow measurably less rational then when a large swath of our population couldn't even read or write.
  - CoastalCoder 5y ago
    I think it's pretty common for an individual person to gain intellectual humility over time, especially at middle-age. As far as historical trends, I think we'd need to start with a clear definition of "rational", and a way to measure that in present and historical societies.
- jtbayly 5y ago
  The shift in language in culture as a whole has (in my own personal observation) been directly tied to the inability of the general populace to even understand basic logic. It also corresponds to a direct rejection in much of academia that there is such a thing as Truth. If you "personally believe" something in today's context, then it is "true for you" and cannot be questioned. Also, I'll just leave this here for fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  > In my experience reading scientific papers, "we conclude" is just a pretentious old-timey way to say "I think". It never actually meant anything more rigorous, it was just the norm to write more pretentiously and inflate the certainty of conclusions. A person of a certain age remembers specifically being taught to obscure weak I-statements with impersonal statements that one could conclude are more rational if they do not think about them too hard.
- wahern 5y ago
  > In my experience reading scientific papers, "we conclude" is just a pretentious old-timey way to say "I think". My high school Philosophy teacher would argue that "I think" is a weasily way to avoid accountability and challenge. And, "I think", she would say, is implied by any first person statement. Nobody can challenge what you think; your thoughts are your own. What they can challenge are declarations you make about the external world. What she failed to foresee is the degree of offense people would eventually claim regarding others' declarations. "I think" is indeed a way to pull your punches, but often to avoid conflict with the public's increasingly hyper-sensitive disposition than to protect one's own fragile ego.
  - civilized 5y ago
    I don't know about Philosotopia, but in the real world the difference between X and "I think X" is pretty obvious, and it's very easy to challenge what others think.
    - wahern 5y ago
      > it's very easy to challenge what others think. Arguably it didn't used to be that way, and the current state of affairs--political divisiveness, etc--is a reflection of those rhetorical, linguistic barriers falling.
austincheney 5y ago
> Interesting language analysis, but I disagree with the conclusion. Authors merely stating "conclude" or "determine" instead "believe" or "feel" doesn't prove they actually were any more or less rational or logical. It actually does. The primary difference is first-person pronoun use versus reliance upon external factors, such as evidence of any kind. That shift indicates a trend towards narcissistic thinking and possibly isolation.
- civilized 5y ago
  This is ridiculous. "We conclude" means you relied on evidence, "I think" doesn't? Give us a break. If you have any experience reading scientific papers, you should know that this sort of language carries no information whatsoever on the rigor of the author's methodology.
  - austincheney 5y ago
    It goes to intent, which is as important as the methodology. Intent is important enough that it is the second step in the scientific process. I can understand why this might be over someone's head, but it really is freshman level communication/rhetorical analysis.
    - civilized 5y ago
      > It goes to intent, which is as important as the methodology. It's not. Especially when it's just pretension and ritualistic habit, and not even real intent.
      - austincheney 5y ago
        > It's not. Especially when The only distinction that matters in what you are arguing is level of education. Again, this is about a very basic command of the written word and at the same the subject here is academic research. Your comment is suggesting a colloquialism as an excuse for poor writing when actually colloquialisms have no business in academic writing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism Like I said before I can also understand why these concepts, even though they are incredibly basic, are so absolutely foreign to a community of software developers that don't frequently write or read academic research.
baxtr 5y ago
I believe you are right!
SubiculumCode 5y ago
Hypothesis: We have more books authored per capita today than then, suggesting a broadening of the types and training of authors. "In 1907 there were 9,260 books published in the United States according to the New York State Library Bookboard. ...Compare that to 2010 when there were 316,480 books published by traditional publishing companies according to Bowker." [1] Meanwhile the U.S. population has grown from 92,228,496 in 1910 to 308,745,538 in 2010. [2] Calculate ratios. In 1910 there was a book published per every 9,959.0 Americans. In 2010, there was a book published per every 975.5 Americans. Ratio of ratios: 10.2x in 1910 individuals per book published. I'm not going to bother with any stat test. There has been a magnitude of change during this span. We have more authors (or publications) per capita than before, likely reflecting a broadening of the socioeconomic and educational classes of the authors. [1] http://stuffnobodycaresabout.com/2012/01/31/how-many-books-were-published-100-years-ago-as-compared-to-today/ http://stuffnobodycaresabout.com/2012/01/31/how-many-books-w... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_Uni... EDIT: It seems I should have started from 1980, not 1910...but now its time for work.
- SubiculumCode 5y ago
  more stats about bbbooks: https://ourworldindata.org/books https://ourworldindata.org/books

civilized 5y ago

Yeah, maybe the outward pretense of rationality was more important in decades past. In my experience reading scientific papers, "we conclude" is just a pretentious old-timey way to say "I think". It never actually meant anything more rigorous, it was just the norm to write more pretentiously and inflate the certainty of conclusions. We've been greatly humbled by being wrong over and over in recent decades. Maybe that has driven people to be less confident and stop presenting their thoughts as inevitable rational conclusions. Another illustration of the weakness of their data interpretation -- the figure shows use of the word "data" has declined in the past 20 years. Has actual use of data declined over this period? Quite the opposite, surely. I think (haha) this last point is actually quite revealing and strongly supports the "decreasing pretension" interpretation of the paper's word use trend charts. Maybe people stopped saying "the data says" over and over in a crude attempt to box the reader into submission.

scsilver 5y ago
It's hard for me to appreciate an argument that we were more rational during a time of religious dominance, the last 2000 or so years. We've been greatly humbled by being wrong over and over in recent decades. Maybe that has driven people to be less confident and stop presenting their thoughts as inevitable rational conclusions. This resonates with me. We are more able to verify our assertions, quicker, faster, more accurately and are more hesitant to make bold claims. I also think we have a bit of division of specialization going on, where the world keeps turning if everyone is competent in their specialty, allowing our personal, unprofessional, side to act more irrationally without as much consequence as in the past. Ultimately it's really hard for me to believe that as we spread education and opportunity to the 8 billion people of the world, we are somehow measurably less rational then when a large swath of our population couldn't even read or write.
- CoastalCoder 5y ago
  I think it's pretty common for an individual person to gain intellectual humility over time, especially at middle-age. As far as historical trends, I think we'd need to start with a clear definition of "rational", and a way to measure that in present and historical societies.
jtbayly 5y ago
The shift in language in culture as a whole has (in my own personal observation) been directly tied to the inability of the general populace to even understand basic logic. It also corresponds to a direct rejection in much of academia that there is such a thing as Truth. If you "personally believe" something in today's context, then it is "true for you" and cannot be questioned. Also, I'll just leave this here for fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
> In my experience reading scientific papers, "we conclude" is just a pretentious old-timey way to say "I think". It never actually meant anything more rigorous, it was just the norm to write more pretentiously and inflate the certainty of conclusions. A person of a certain age remembers specifically being taught to obscure weak I-statements with impersonal statements that one could conclude are more rational if they do not think about them too hard.
wahern 5y ago
> In my experience reading scientific papers, "we conclude" is just a pretentious old-timey way to say "I think". My high school Philosophy teacher would argue that "I think" is a weasily way to avoid accountability and challenge. And, "I think", she would say, is implied by any first person statement. Nobody can challenge what you think; your thoughts are your own. What they can challenge are declarations you make about the external world. What she failed to foresee is the degree of offense people would eventually claim regarding others' declarations. "I think" is indeed a way to pull your punches, but often to avoid conflict with the public's increasingly hyper-sensitive disposition than to protect one's own fragile ego.
- civilized 5y ago
  I don't know about Philosotopia, but in the real world the difference between X and "I think X" is pretty obvious, and it's very easy to challenge what others think.
  - wahern 5y ago
    > it's very easy to challenge what others think. Arguably it didn't used to be that way, and the current state of affairs--political divisiveness, etc--is a reflection of those rhetorical, linguistic barriers falling.

austincheney 5y ago

> Interesting language analysis, but I disagree with the conclusion. Authors merely stating "conclude" or "determine" instead "believe" or "feel" doesn't prove they actually were any more or less rational or logical. It actually does. The primary difference is first-person pronoun use versus reliance upon external factors, such as evidence of any kind. That shift indicates a trend towards narcissistic thinking and possibly isolation.

civilized 5y ago
This is ridiculous. "We conclude" means you relied on evidence, "I think" doesn't? Give us a break. If you have any experience reading scientific papers, you should know that this sort of language carries no information whatsoever on the rigor of the author's methodology.
- austincheney 5y ago
  It goes to intent, which is as important as the methodology. Intent is important enough that it is the second step in the scientific process. I can understand why this might be over someone's head, but it really is freshman level communication/rhetorical analysis.
  - civilized 5y ago
    > It goes to intent, which is as important as the methodology. It's not. Especially when it's just pretension and ritualistic habit, and not even real intent.
    - austincheney 5y ago
      > It's not. Especially when The only distinction that matters in what you are arguing is level of education. Again, this is about a very basic command of the written word and at the same the subject here is academic research. Your comment is suggesting a colloquialism as an excuse for poor writing when actually colloquialisms have no business in academic writing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism Like I said before I can also understand why these concepts, even though they are incredibly basic, are so absolutely foreign to a community of software developers that don't frequently write or read academic research.

baxtr 5y ago

I believe you are right!

SubiculumCode 5y ago

Hypothesis: We have more books authored per capita today than then, suggesting a broadening of the types and training of authors. "In 1907 there were 9,260 books published in the United States according to the New York State Library Bookboard. ...Compare that to 2010 when there were 316,480 books published by traditional publishing companies according to Bowker." [1] Meanwhile the U.S. population has grown from 92,228,496 in 1910 to 308,745,538 in 2010. [2] Calculate ratios. In 1910 there was a book published per every 9,959.0 Americans. In 2010, there was a book published per every 975.5 Americans. Ratio of ratios: 10.2x in 1910 individuals per book published. I'm not going to bother with any stat test. There has been a magnitude of change during this span. We have more authors (or publications) per capita than before, likely reflecting a broadening of the socioeconomic and educational classes of the authors. [1] http://stuffnobodycaresabout.com/2012/01/31/how-many-books-were-published-100-years-ago-as-compared-to-today/ http://stuffnobodycaresabout.com/2012/01/31/how-many-books-w... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_Uni... EDIT: It seems I should have started from 1980, not 1910...but now its time for work.

SubiculumCode 5y ago
more stats about bbbooks: https://ourworldindata.org/books https://ourworldindata.org/books