4 ms·

I know that many people feel that you have to write like this to get anyone to pay attention (maybe they're right), but after enough years in physics, the breat

I know that many people feel that you have to write like this to get anyone to pay attention (maybe they're right), but after enough years in physics, the breathlessness of this kind of reporting really starts to grate. > international team of researchers has proved > made the breakthrough > discovered the 'Rosetta Stone' I haven't read this particular article carefully, but I think it's safe to assume that words like "reformulated," "clarified," "extended," or "embedded in a new framework" would be more appropriate. Which is fine. New and better explanations are useful and important. But despite what you may read, we don't find a new Rosetta Stone for quantum physics every year. I get much more excited about science writing where the reader can come away with a better understanding of an actual concept, rather than just a sense that someone somewhere is doing something hard and smart.

jwmerrill 12y ago
To put it another way, I think you are much more likely to absorb powerful ways of thinking while being entertained if you read https://what-if.xkcd.com/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/ than if you read http://phys.org http://phys.org What If shows by example that you can apply quantitative reasoning to the most outlandish situations and actually draw interesting distinctions and conclusions. Phys.org style reporting urges you to accept by argument from authority that the universe is mostly made of dark energy, and gravity is made out of particles traveling backwards in time through 11 dimensions or whatever it was I read last month I can't quite remember. These ideas come from actual serious research, but they aren't powerful when presented this way because you can't apply this style of reasoning successfully unless you have tons and tons of training working in the specific areas they report on.

jwmerrill 12y ago

To put it another way, I think you are much more likely to absorb powerful ways of thinking while being entertained if you read https://what-if.xkcd.com/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/ than if you read http://phys.org http://phys.org What If shows by example that you can apply quantitative reasoning to the most outlandish situations and actually draw interesting distinctions and conclusions. Phys.org style reporting urges you to accept by argument from authority that the universe is mostly made of dark energy, and gravity is made out of particles traveling backwards in time through 11 dimensions or whatever it was I read last month I can't quite remember. These ideas come from actual serious research, but they aren't powerful when presented this way because you can't apply this style of reasoning successfully unless you have tons and tons of training working in the specific areas they report on.