4 ms·

Going off-topic, what would a good "computer science for the general public" article look like to you? I imagine it would not be about something new, but someth

by aristus 14y ago

Going off-topic, what would a good "computer science for the general public" article look like to you? I imagine it would not be about something new, but something well-established and how it relates to the real world. Eg, the principles of process control as applied to logistics.

xk_id 14y ago
I say the whole dichotomy between the day-to-day vocabulary and technical/scientific vocabularies should be dropped altogether. This dichotomy is responsible for the cliquey attitude of scientists on one end; the treatment of sciences as esoteric by the laymen on the other end; the labelling of science enthusiasts as "hipsters"; etc. All of which is ridiculous. Today, the life conditions of the layman are given by modern sciences, but he insists in using an antiquated vocabulary in speaking about his experiences and the world. Hence some people strongly feel in terms of "computer wizard" instead of "computer literate"; "static matter" instead of "processes"; etc. We really should stop divorcing sciences from our day-to-day life, vocabularies and feelings; it's unnatural what is going on. We look like cavemen with mobile phones, and more than half a century after the formulation of cybernetics, our daily epistemologies are still largely Aristotelian! So a well written scientific article for the general public would avoid translating the scientific discoveries into the antiquated terms. "Quantum ether"? What a heroic way to crap on the enormous shift from Newton's "fundamental emptiness" to Einstein's "fundamental plenum". Similarly for CS articles, careless translations should be avoided; instead, we should borrow in our common speaking as much as possible from scientific vocabularies, and make those terms fundamental: they serve and represent us much, much better, because they package the most up-to-date results of our enquires into the structure of the world. Sciences give us factors of sanity, let's not waste them. Edit: cosmetics.
- aristus 14y ago
  Ah, but you'd have to spend a few hundred words explaining "plenum". I have no clue what that is, and I'd need at the very least a simple analogy. Science writing can lose clarity in the pursuit of concision and precision.

by aristus 14y ago

xk_id 14y ago

I say the whole dichotomy between the day-to-day vocabulary and technical/scientific vocabularies should be dropped altogether. This dichotomy is responsible for the cliquey attitude of scientists on one end; the treatment of sciences as esoteric by the laymen on the other end; the labelling of science enthusiasts as "hipsters"; etc. All of which is ridiculous. Today, the life conditions of the layman are given by modern sciences, but he insists in using an antiquated vocabulary in speaking about his experiences and the world. Hence some people strongly feel in terms of "computer wizard" instead of "computer literate"; "static matter" instead of "processes"; etc. We really should stop divorcing sciences from our day-to-day life, vocabularies and feelings; it's unnatural what is going on. We look like cavemen with mobile phones, and more than half a century after the formulation of cybernetics, our daily epistemologies are still largely Aristotelian! So a well written scientific article for the general public would avoid translating the scientific discoveries into the antiquated terms. "Quantum ether"? What a heroic way to crap on the enormous shift from Newton's "fundamental emptiness" to Einstein's "fundamental plenum". Similarly for CS articles, careless translations should be avoided; instead, we should borrow in our common speaking as much as possible from scientific vocabularies, and make those terms fundamental: they serve and represent us much, much better, because they package the most up-to-date results of our enquires into the structure of the world. Sciences give us factors of sanity, let's not waste them. Edit: cosmetics.

aristus 14y ago
Ah, but you'd have to spend a few hundred words explaining "plenum". I have no clue what that is, and I'd need at the very least a simple analogy. Science writing can lose clarity in the pursuit of concision and precision.