Forbes and Nature recently published these two articles on the complexity of science writing:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2017/03/26/study-re-emphasizes-if-you-want-to-advance-science-try-explaining-it-more-simply/#61cc0de013ae
http://www.nature.com/news/it-s-not-just-you-science-papers-are-getting-harder-to-read-1.21751
These articles is related to one of my "deep thoughts" about science.
Scientists have a need for precise communication to other scientists in
order to accurately convey the details of our analysis. As a result, we
have developed what are effectively entirely new languages full of
technical jargon. Reading a biology paper is completely foreign to me.
Even sub-fields within astronomy can read like different "dialects."
For example, we can use different words between fields for
the same mathematical analysis technique. This article is more about
the quality of writing (sentence and word complexity), but the point is
related. I'm glad to see that at least some people are attempting to
understand this phenomenon and its implications. The need for science
communicators (aka "translators") for the general public speaks to my
fear of the (growing?) disconnect between scientific progress and the
public perception of science. I fear that many of our failures - e.g.
global warming, evolution - stem from a failure, or at least an
underfunded effort, to communicate (translate) effectively. I'd even
go so far as to change the typical formatting of a scientific papers in
journals to require as a new standard the inclusion of the equivalent of
an "executive summary" for the public - not just an abstract, but
something free of jargon and comprehensible to a high school graduate.
To summarize: The
output of science shouldn't be accessible to only a select few who
speak a specific "language" that requires years of specialized training
to understand. Years of specialized training to undertake said
research, sure. But not to understand the gist.
No comments:
Post a Comment