3 ms·

We don't need faster scientific writing We need slower scientific writing. Edit: While I understand policy involved, apologies, I'd contend 'shallow'. Not len

We don't need faster scientific writing We need slower scientific writing. Edit: While I understand policy involved, apologies, I'd contend 'shallow'. Not lengthy? Sure. But the point was made enough @kbk et al. got it

aio2 2y ago
Ouch, straight to the point.
kbk 2y ago
For reference http://slow-science.org/ http://slow-science.org/ > We are scientists. We don’t blog. We don’t twitter. We take our time.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  It is good that the actual scientists aren’t going to do this task. It is a shame that we’ve more or less given up on the idea of having science communicators to do that job. IMO when journalism ended the worst side-effect was that people who would be otherwise employed actually doing things have had to start blogging about the fact that they were doing them, instead of actually doing them.
  - rrnechmech 2y ago
    > having science communicators to do that jo Were is Sagan, Clark, Asimov. Burke when one needs them? Maybe AI might help here
    - rrnechmech 2y ago
      "Where is" ...
- sixpackpg 2y ago
  While the concept of slow work has merit, the ideas in this manifesto are deeply flawed and lack nuance. Also the application of this manifesto to the tool above is similarly flawed. The tool helps save time in non thinking work e.g faster representation of information. Slow works happens after the representation of notes. Rarely during the creation of notes, creation of notes being the goal of this Stempad. The original idea of this notebook is a new system which can reduces bad time usage e.g. writing A x A x A x A x A. becomes A^5 The tool allows representation of ideas quicker. This means there's more time for important work, more time for slow work mentioned in the last paragraph of that manifesto. Points in regards to the flaws of this manifesto: To use the same framework of the initial statement to show flaws in thinking: >We are scientists. We don't blog. We don't twitter. We take our time. We are experts. We don't reflect online. We don't communicate online. We take our time. If the quote said: We are scientists. We protect our time to focus on important work. We choose to not engage in shallow discourse. And value depth over speed even at the cost of time. We believe speed for speed's sake comes at a cost. Then there is a leg to stand upon to protect "slow work". >Slow science was pretty much the only science conceivable for hundreds of years; today, we argue, it deserves revival and needs protection. Society should give scientists the time they need, but more importantly, scientists must _take_ their time. Slow science is not defined in any way, and so prevents discussion and debate. Something being the only conceivable option does not mean it was the best option. Nor does the time span it existed give the process extra value. For millennia humans used 2 legs for our primary mode of transport. There is no movement to protect the usage of slow transport - "Walking was pretty much the only transported conceivable for hundreds of years; today, we argue, it deserves revival and needs protection. Society should give humans time to walk to destinations, but more importantly, humans must take their time" I agree science does need time to think, explore and discuss, but it does not need time to express ideas using AxAxAxAxA when tools such as Stempad exist to write A^5.
dang 2y ago
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html
ralph_r 2y ago
I totally get where you're coming from, maybe I could have worded the title differently. In contexts such as publishing scientific papers and journals, patience and attention to detail are really important. There are however many other contexts where I would argue speed and a simple UX makes a big difference. * Notes that need to be taken on the fly: class notes, lab notes, field observations, general notes * Prototyping, brainstorming, ideation sessions, especially collaborative ones * Drafting outlines * Creating presentations on work you've already completed * Doing schoolwork, such as assignments or lab reports * Creating teaching material on content material you're a subject matter expert in That's a few examples but there are plenty more. The goal isn't to rush the scientific process. The goal is to have a tool that doesn't get in your way and enables speed-of-thought writing for science. This can be helpful in many ways, especially for students, but also for scientists.
- cl3misch 2y ago
  I think you are very right. I have been missing a "simple" UI for digital scientific notes and your project looks great. Less for documentation or papers maybe, more as a tool of thought or impromptu communication. Or both, who knows. During my Master's or PhD I would have agreed with the "slow science" sentiments here. These days I want to get things done and work with collaborators.
- ted_dunning 2y ago
  Another way to put this while avoiding the slow/fast argument is that the tools for note-taking should not hobble you. That is, stempad is a blow against artificially slow writing, not against all slow writing. It ideally doesn't keep you from thinking deeply and may help if it lets you avoid thinking about the tool instead of the content.
  - rrnechmech 2y ago
    > against artificially slow writing, not against all slow writing. This is really well put Impediments not deliberate choice
- rrnechmech 2y ago

aio2 2y ago

Ouch, straight to the point.

kbk 2y ago

For reference http://slow-science.org/ http://slow-science.org/ > We are scientists. We don’t blog. We don’t twitter. We take our time.

bee_rider 2y ago
It is good that the actual scientists aren’t going to do this task. It is a shame that we’ve more or less given up on the idea of having science communicators to do that job. IMO when journalism ended the worst side-effect was that people who would be otherwise employed actually doing things have had to start blogging about the fact that they were doing them, instead of actually doing them.
- rrnechmech 2y ago
  > having science communicators to do that jo Were is Sagan, Clark, Asimov. Burke when one needs them? Maybe AI might help here
  - rrnechmech 2y ago
    "Where is" ...
sixpackpg 2y ago
While the concept of slow work has merit, the ideas in this manifesto are deeply flawed and lack nuance. Also the application of this manifesto to the tool above is similarly flawed. The tool helps save time in non thinking work e.g faster representation of information. Slow works happens after the representation of notes. Rarely during the creation of notes, creation of notes being the goal of this Stempad. The original idea of this notebook is a new system which can reduces bad time usage e.g. writing A x A x A x A x A. becomes A^5 The tool allows representation of ideas quicker. This means there's more time for important work, more time for slow work mentioned in the last paragraph of that manifesto. Points in regards to the flaws of this manifesto: To use the same framework of the initial statement to show flaws in thinking: >We are scientists. We don't blog. We don't twitter. We take our time. We are experts. We don't reflect online. We don't communicate online. We take our time. If the quote said: We are scientists. We protect our time to focus on important work. We choose to not engage in shallow discourse. And value depth over speed even at the cost of time. We believe speed for speed's sake comes at a cost. Then there is a leg to stand upon to protect "slow work". >Slow science was pretty much the only science conceivable for hundreds of years; today, we argue, it deserves revival and needs protection. Society should give scientists the time they need, but more importantly, scientists must _take_ their time. Slow science is not defined in any way, and so prevents discussion and debate. Something being the only conceivable option does not mean it was the best option. Nor does the time span it existed give the process extra value. For millennia humans used 2 legs for our primary mode of transport. There is no movement to protect the usage of slow transport - "Walking was pretty much the only transported conceivable for hundreds of years; today, we argue, it deserves revival and needs protection. Society should give humans time to walk to destinations, but more importantly, humans must take their time" I agree science does need time to think, explore and discuss, but it does not need time to express ideas using AxAxAxAxA when tools such as Stempad exist to write A^5.

dang 2y ago

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html

ralph_r 2y ago

I totally get where you're coming from, maybe I could have worded the title differently. In contexts such as publishing scientific papers and journals, patience and attention to detail are really important. There are however many other contexts where I would argue speed and a simple UX makes a big difference. * Notes that need to be taken on the fly: class notes, lab notes, field observations, general notes * Prototyping, brainstorming, ideation sessions, especially collaborative ones * Drafting outlines * Creating presentations on work you've already completed * Doing schoolwork, such as assignments or lab reports * Creating teaching material on content material you're a subject matter expert in That's a few examples but there are plenty more. The goal isn't to rush the scientific process. The goal is to have a tool that doesn't get in your way and enables speed-of-thought writing for science. This can be helpful in many ways, especially for students, but also for scientists.

cl3misch 2y ago
I think you are very right. I have been missing a "simple" UI for digital scientific notes and your project looks great. Less for documentation or papers maybe, more as a tool of thought or impromptu communication. Or both, who knows. During my Master's or PhD I would have agreed with the "slow science" sentiments here. These days I want to get things done and work with collaborators.
ted_dunning 2y ago
Another way to put this while avoiding the slow/fast argument is that the tools for note-taking should not hobble you. That is, stempad is a blow against artificially slow writing, not against all slow writing. It ideally doesn't keep you from thinking deeply and may help if it lets you avoid thinking about the tool instead of the content.
- rrnechmech 2y ago
  > against artificially slow writing, not against all slow writing. This is really well put Impediments not deliberate choice
rrnechmech 2y ago