4 ms·

Yes, yes, I get it. Who am I to challegne an authority in scientific writing, that has so many scientist friends to boot. And what do I know about writing anywa

Yes, yes, I get it. Who am I to challegne an authority in scientific writing, that has so many scientist friends to boot. And what do I know about writing anyway, I don't even have a single best-seller under my belt. Clearly, challenging authorities is not the way of a true scientist.

openknot 5y ago
Though I see your point (that it's good practice to assess logical arguments independent of an author's credentials), brudgers's comment was still quite useful. I skimmed the comments before deciding to reading the article, and likely would have skipped on this submission if I didn't know about his work at Santa Fe (which was also mentioned in the article itself), as I associate McCarthy with his literary work. I had no previous awareness he has been working with scientists on technical writing.
brudgers 5y ago
My point is that McCarthy has an expert opinion and is writing for people who are not struggling toward a first scientific journal publication. The advice that makes a poor writer acceptable differs from what makes a good writer better.
- YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
  >> My point is that McCarthy has an expert opinion and is writing for people who are not struggling toward a first scientific journal publication. I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean that in the context of the article? Are you saying that the article above is aimed at people with some experience of writing? By the way, your original comment came across as a haughty attempt at a put-down by an appeal to authority, hence my reaction to it. My apologies if I misunderstood your intent.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Yes, that's what he's saying. Scientists at the Santa Fe Institute tend already to have been published, since that's how you get to be a scientist at SFI. I didn't read their original comment as a put-down of any sort, for whatever that's worth to you. If you jump into an article like this just getting to the tips (a reasonable thing to do!) you might miss the fact that McCarthy has the expertise to back up what he's saying (and, for that matter, miss the audience of his tips, as you might have).
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
      And now you're assuming I didn't read the article. Well done. I've read it, twice, once yesterday and once when it was posted on HN previously a while ago, when I made the same comment about that particular suggestion at the top of the thread. And you're trying to pull rank via proxy on me. I have the expertise to back up what I'm saying also. See my comment at the top.
      - tptacek 5y ago
        There's nothing personal about any of this. I don't even know who you are. But: your "rank" here is that you've taken a course in academic writing and gotten some journal articles accepted, and McCarthy's "rank" is that he's one of the greatest writers of the last 50 years and is in a kind of residency copyediting papers for the Santa Fe Institute. I'd take him seriously. But you do you.
        YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
        No, no, you misunderstand me. I don't assign any "rank" to myself. You are trying to pull rank on me by proxy, because you do not have any expertise in this matter (you 're not a researcher and you don't publish papers, correct?) and so you're trying to make up for that with an invocation of someone you think I must absolutely agree is an authority not to be disagreed with. What I'm saying is that I do have relevant expertise because publishing papers is my job, and because I know that doing what McCarthy suggests in my quote above is the opposite of what got my papers published. You're just trying to shut down the conversation by summoning what you think is a higher power. That doesn't work with people like me, who are expected to take down authorities without fear of browbeating by said authorities or their volunteer cheerleaders, as part of our job. You might as well let me know that Beyoncé disagrees with me, for all the good it will do to remind me that McCarthy is a Best Seller-ist. Who works for the Santa Fe Institute. Sorry, I felt I had to expound on that because I find it very interesting when it happens.
  - brudgers 5y ago
    Arguments from authority are useful, valid, and important as the basis for science…we don’t spend our time arguing about the heliocentric model, the periodic table, and Newtonian physics because of them. Appeals to authority are fallacious when the authority has expertise in a field other than that in question: McCarthy’s authority on writing, doesn’t lend weight to his opinions on skateboarding, animal husbandry, and nutrition. One of the most common self serving fallacious uses of authority is I-have-a-PhD. Here the PhD-fallacy wasn’t this-is-what-works-for-me. It was McCarthy is wrong followed with a bunch of noise over scientific method instead of listening and learning. My initial comment was performative erudition (HN’s sine qua non) to place a top comment’s sophomoric exposition in context…so yes, I didn’t think much of the comment. But with the bar on the ground, I didn’t expect the follow up to go under it. There’s no need to apologize.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
      Ah, so I'm right- your comment was 100% a put-down, aimed at shaming me for not having the illustrious career of McCarthy's friends? In that case, you are absolutely right that I have no need to apologise. But perhaps you should think about where you place "the bar" next time, in your comments, rather than trying to blame me, for being frustrated at your sarcasm.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
softwarebeware 5y ago
Seriously! Reminds me of the famous story of an undergrad who used a text by Richard Feynman as a source for a college paper, and was graded down by her professor. She then contacted Feynman to obtain justification, but Feynman replied: "Your instructor was right not to give you any points, for your answer was wrong, as he demonstrated using Gauss’ law. You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities." https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2020/feynmans-advice-to-wm-student-resonates-45-years-later.php https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2020/feynmans-advice-to-wm-s...

openknot 5y ago

Though I see your point (that it's good practice to assess logical arguments independent of an author's credentials), brudgers's comment was still quite useful. I skimmed the comments before deciding to reading the article, and likely would have skipped on this submission if I didn't know about his work at Santa Fe (which was also mentioned in the article itself), as I associate McCarthy with his literary work. I had no previous awareness he has been working with scientists on technical writing.

brudgers 5y ago

My point is that McCarthy has an expert opinion and is writing for people who are not struggling toward a first scientific journal publication. The advice that makes a poor writer acceptable differs from what makes a good writer better.

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
>> My point is that McCarthy has an expert opinion and is writing for people who are not struggling toward a first scientific journal publication. I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean that in the context of the article? Are you saying that the article above is aimed at people with some experience of writing? By the way, your original comment came across as a haughty attempt at a put-down by an appeal to authority, hence my reaction to it. My apologies if I misunderstood your intent.
- tptacek 5y ago
  Yes, that's what he's saying. Scientists at the Santa Fe Institute tend already to have been published, since that's how you get to be a scientist at SFI. I didn't read their original comment as a put-down of any sort, for whatever that's worth to you. If you jump into an article like this just getting to the tips (a reasonable thing to do!) you might miss the fact that McCarthy has the expertise to back up what he's saying (and, for that matter, miss the audience of his tips, as you might have).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
    And now you're assuming I didn't read the article. Well done. I've read it, twice, once yesterday and once when it was posted on HN previously a while ago, when I made the same comment about that particular suggestion at the top of the thread. And you're trying to pull rank via proxy on me. I have the expertise to back up what I'm saying also. See my comment at the top.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      There's nothing personal about any of this. I don't even know who you are. But: your "rank" here is that you've taken a course in academic writing and gotten some journal articles accepted, and McCarthy's "rank" is that he's one of the greatest writers of the last 50 years and is in a kind of residency copyediting papers for the Santa Fe Institute. I'd take him seriously. But you do you.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
        No, no, you misunderstand me. I don't assign any "rank" to myself. You are trying to pull rank on me by proxy, because you do not have any expertise in this matter (you 're not a researcher and you don't publish papers, correct?) and so you're trying to make up for that with an invocation of someone you think I must absolutely agree is an authority not to be disagreed with. What I'm saying is that I do have relevant expertise because publishing papers is my job, and because I know that doing what McCarthy suggests in my quote above is the opposite of what got my papers published. You're just trying to shut down the conversation by summoning what you think is a higher power. That doesn't work with people like me, who are expected to take down authorities without fear of browbeating by said authorities or their volunteer cheerleaders, as part of our job. You might as well let me know that Beyoncé disagrees with me, for all the good it will do to remind me that McCarthy is a Best Seller-ist. Who works for the Santa Fe Institute. Sorry, I felt I had to expound on that because I find it very interesting when it happens.
- brudgers 5y ago
  Arguments from authority are useful, valid, and important as the basis for science…we don’t spend our time arguing about the heliocentric model, the periodic table, and Newtonian physics because of them. Appeals to authority are fallacious when the authority has expertise in a field other than that in question: McCarthy’s authority on writing, doesn’t lend weight to his opinions on skateboarding, animal husbandry, and nutrition. One of the most common self serving fallacious uses of authority is I-have-a-PhD. Here the PhD-fallacy wasn’t this-is-what-works-for-me. It was McCarthy is wrong followed with a bunch of noise over scientific method instead of listening and learning. My initial comment was performative erudition (HN’s sine qua non) to place a top comment’s sophomoric exposition in context…so yes, I didn’t think much of the comment. But with the bar on the ground, I didn’t expect the follow up to go under it. There’s no need to apologize.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
    Ah, so I'm right- your comment was 100% a put-down, aimed at shaming me for not having the illustrious career of McCarthy's friends? In that case, you are absolutely right that I have no need to apologise. But perhaps you should think about where you place "the bar" next time, in your comments, rather than trying to blame me, for being frustrated at your sarcasm.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

softwarebeware 5y ago

Seriously! Reminds me of the famous story of an undergrad who used a text by Richard Feynman as a source for a college paper, and was graded down by her professor. She then contacted Feynman to obtain justification, but Feynman replied: "Your instructor was right not to give you any points, for your answer was wrong, as he demonstrated using Gauss’ law. You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities." https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2020/feynmans-advice-to-wm-student-resonates-45-years-later.php https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2020/feynmans-advice-to-wm-s...