7 ms·

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

> 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.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - civilized 5y ago
        Speaking from experience, you vastly overstate the extent to which your "very basic" and "incredibly basic" personal stylistic expectations prevail in academia as a whole. Regardless, I don't really care if an academic thinks they concluded something from evidence or they just think it as a matter of opinion. A lot of the time, they don't know the difference anyway. They can present their evidence and I'll decide if I believe whatever they think or conclude. I know academics. As a class, they aren't especially rigorous, precise, or deserving of epistemic privilege. Some are, but there's far too much variance to make broad brush statements.
        austincheney 5y ago
        > Regardless, I don't really care You do care or you wouldn't be arguing with me and sounding emotional.
        civilized 5y ago
        Saying things that make you emotional because they hit too close to home isn't the same as saying things emotionally.
- naasking 5y ago
  It's not necessarily ridiculous. It depends on the sort of social norms and stigmas that are associated with those words. For instance, there could exist a certain cultural expectation of a certain level of rigour that accompanies any emphatic statements like "I conclude", and "I think" could have fewer such standards and so permit more lax claims to pass for those who are less familiar with the culture, like new scientists who have not yet absorbed those norms. I don't think it's the most plausible explanation but it's not clearly and obviously wrong. Context what matters to make sense of this, but I'm not sure this sort of analysis could ferret that out.
sideshowb 5y ago
I see the current trend towards first person, and away from passive voice, as the opposite. "I preprocessed the data using algorithm X", compared to "The data was preprocessed using algorithm X", explicitly acknowledges a fallible human being at the centre of the analysis.
- austincheney 5y ago
  Perhaps, but that isn't the argument this paper is making.
- watwut 5y ago
  I took it as a trend toward more readable style and away from unnatural hard to read sentences. As in, scientific community learning to write like humans.
sparsely 5y ago
It could also reflect a trend towards more precise use of language and more accurate communication of the outcomes of the author's work. You'd have to do a more in depth study of the actual work and usage to determine which is the case.

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.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - civilized 5y ago
      Speaking from experience, you vastly overstate the extent to which your "very basic" and "incredibly basic" personal stylistic expectations prevail in academia as a whole. Regardless, I don't really care if an academic thinks they concluded something from evidence or they just think it as a matter of opinion. A lot of the time, they don't know the difference anyway. They can present their evidence and I'll decide if I believe whatever they think or conclude. I know academics. As a class, they aren't especially rigorous, precise, or deserving of epistemic privilege. Some are, but there's far too much variance to make broad brush statements.
      - austincheney 5y ago
        > Regardless, I don't really care You do care or you wouldn't be arguing with me and sounding emotional.
        civilized 5y ago
        Saying things that make you emotional because they hit too close to home isn't the same as saying things emotionally.
naasking 5y ago
It's not necessarily ridiculous. It depends on the sort of social norms and stigmas that are associated with those words. For instance, there could exist a certain cultural expectation of a certain level of rigour that accompanies any emphatic statements like "I conclude", and "I think" could have fewer such standards and so permit more lax claims to pass for those who are less familiar with the culture, like new scientists who have not yet absorbed those norms. I don't think it's the most plausible explanation but it's not clearly and obviously wrong. Context what matters to make sense of this, but I'm not sure this sort of analysis could ferret that out.

sideshowb 5y ago

I see the current trend towards first person, and away from passive voice, as the opposite. "I preprocessed the data using algorithm X", compared to "The data was preprocessed using algorithm X", explicitly acknowledges a fallible human being at the centre of the analysis.

austincheney 5y ago
Perhaps, but that isn't the argument this paper is making.
watwut 5y ago
I took it as a trend toward more readable style and away from unnatural hard to read sentences. As in, scientific community learning to write like humans.

sparsely 5y ago

It could also reflect a trend towards more precise use of language and more accurate communication of the outcomes of the author's work. You'd have to do a more in depth study of the actual work and usage to determine which is the case.