DAST Chat

2012-11-02 06:00:12

#7876

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5568|London, England

Spark wrote:
...

well no, references are kind of the most fundamental basis of any respectable academic. if you don't reference properly, then you're less than a hack. and the number of citations is by far the best quick quantitative measure of a paper's influence and quality.

The obsession with citation precludes original work. It's precisely the academic conservatism the author was talking about. Citations are supposed to prevent plagiarism, nothing more.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-11-02 06:05:14

#7877

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6316|eXtreme to the maX

How many citations did Einstein or Newton have in their papers I wonder?

Fuck Israel

2012-11-02 06:10:16

#7878

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6210|...

Depends on the point of the published work. If you wish to forward new theories and all that you (usually) introduce your reader into the subject & influential works in the field before you start fleshing out your main argument. Hence citation. If you wish to simply give a comprehensive overview of the literature on a certain subject that usually only gets mentioned in passing by various academics your work will be riddled with references. If you wish to forward an analysis of something, more often than not it will be based on existing theories and will again include a lot of references.

In any case, citations and references will be crucial in 99% of the works presented. I don't see a problem.

inane little opines

2012-11-02 06:35:57

#7879

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6210|...

Dilbert_X wrote:
How many citations did Einstein or Newton have in their papers I wonder?

They wrote on subjects nobody had even thought about before them; they opened up entirely new fields of study. Hardly something most people are capable of let alone interested in. If you research a subject which already has substantial academic attention you simply cannot ignore what has been written as you have to defend your argument.

Something you also fail to recognize is that the social sciences & humanities can't use mathematical logic to present an argument - which means you have to construct arguments in a completely different way. In many cases there are much more factors to consider in your research, so much so that it's nearly impossible to encompass them all in a model, while this is comparatively easy in the natural sciences. Not only that, experimentation and reproduction may be impossible and/or the subject that's being treated doesn't have set rules by which to describe it.

inane little opines

2012-11-02 06:36:36

#7880

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6885|Canberra, AUS

Jay wrote:
Spark wrote:
...

well no, references are kind of the most fundamental basis of any respectable academic. if you don't reference properly, then you're less than a hack. and the number of citations is by far the best quick quantitative measure of a paper's influence and quality.
The obsession with citation precludes original work. It's precisely the academic conservatism the author was talking about. Citations are supposed to prevent plagiarism, nothing more.

the rule i follow - and the rule everyone follows is that if

(1) you haven't proved it explicitly
(2) you didn't get the results yourself
(3) it's not completely bloody obvious and general knowledge

you cite it. otherwise there's nothing to say you didn't just make shit up and pass it off as fact - or worse, copy.

edit: unless you're talking about my point that # of citations is a vague measure of quality. that's a very general trend and the reasoning is fairly obvious - a good/influential will have a higher likelihood of being cited.

Last edited by Spark (2012-11-02 06:42:06)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-11-02 06:39:50

#7881

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6885|Canberra, AUS

Dilbert_X wrote:
How many citations did Einstein or Newton have in their papers I wonder?

you really know fuckall about science, don't you? for one, newton was working in a completely different scientific paradigm before anything like a rigorous scientific model was established. secondly, einstein's most famous papers were so breathtakingly new that he didn't need citations - but when he needed them, he used them.

to not cite when you should is the cardinal sin in research. it is plagiarism, pure and simple.

Shocking wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
How many citations did Einstein or Newton have in their papers I wonder?
They wrote on subjects nobody had even thought about before them; they opened up entirely new fields of study. Hardly something most people are capable of let alone interested in. If you research a subject which already has substantial academic attention you simply cannot ignore what has been written as you have to defend your argument.

Something you also fail to recognize is that the social sciences & humanities can't use mathematical logic to present an argument - which means you have to construct arguments in a completely different way. In many cases there are much more factors to consider in your research, so much so that it's nearly impossible to encompass them all in a model, while this is comparatively easy in the natural sciences. Not only that, experimentation and reproduction may be impossible and/or the subject that's being treated doesn't have set rules by which to describe it.

maths relies heavily on citations too. why the fuck should i bother spending pages and pages proving a statement someone else has already proved?

Last edited by Spark (2012-11-02 06:40:36)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-11-02 06:43:14

#7882

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6316|eXtreme to the maX

Shocking wrote:
Depends on the point of the published work. If you wish to forward new theories and all that you (usually) introduce your reader into the subject & influential works in the field before you start fleshing out your main argument. Hence citation. If you wish to simply give a comprehensive overview of the literature on a certain subject that usually only gets mentioned in passing by various academics your work will be riddled with references. If you wish to forward an analysis of something, more often than not it will be based on existing theories and will again include a lot of references.

In any case, citations and references will be crucial in 99% of the works presented. I don't see a problem.

The problem I see is zillions of papers being published with little or no new work, and a hell of a lot of going over old ground.
That and a lot of time students spend learning to write 'proper' papers and less on how to break new ground.

Fuck Israel

2012-11-02 06:46:49

#7883

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6316|eXtreme to the maX

einstein's most famous papers were so breathtakingly new that he didn't need citations

Isn't that the point really? Publishing a paper when you have little or nothing new to say is a waste.

Fuck Israel

2012-11-02 06:50:46

#7884

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6885|Canberra, AUS

once again you amaze me about your ignorance about something you claim to know so much about.

hint: there are these things called theories. people tell everyone about them. they need testing. people do experiments. they tell everyone the results.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-11-02 07:18:16

#7885

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5568|London, England

Spark wrote:
once again you amaze me about your ignorance about something you claim to know so much about.

hint: there are these things called theories. people tell everyone about them. they need testing. people do experiments. they tell everyone the results.

I think his argument is that most people in academia are hacks with nothing to say, so they hide their mediocrity behind citations and amongst likewise mediocre colleagues who together can hide it behind weight of numbers. This in turn allows them to retain their false sense of elitist superiority. If they wrote for the plebes they would be exposed.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-11-02 07:21:16

#7886

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6885|Canberra, AUS

the beauty of research is that you have the freedom to be completely fucking wrong all the time. that allows you intellectual freedom to do whatever you want, which is always the best way to do research.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-11-02 07:23:27

#7887

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5568|London, England

Spark wrote:
the beauty of research is that you have the freedom to be completely fucking wrong all the time. that allows you intellectual freedom to do whatever you want, which is always the best way to do research.

You're right, that's often the best way to find truth. Most people are terrified of being wrong though, so they take no chances and contribute nothing.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-11-02 07:27:19

#7888

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,978|6842|949

Jay wrote:
Spark wrote:
once again you amaze me about your ignorance about something you claim to know so much about.

hint: there are these things called theories. people tell everyone about them. they need testing. people do experiments. they tell everyone the results.
I think his argument is that most people in academia are hacks with nothing to say, so they hide their mediocrity behind citations and amongst likewise mediocre colleagues who together can hide it behind weight of numbers. This in turn allows them to retain their false sense of elitist superiority. If they wrote for the plebes they would be exposed.

how does that argument really hold any validity if you don't read a lot of academic papers? I could make a general comment about anything but that doesn't make it so.

It's almost ironic that we are talking about research and citations and then generally stupid comments are made about academia. You want fresh, new ideas with citations but then you regurgitate the same generalizations about academia even though you really have nothing to offer up as reference except for an article that's essentially a renewed commentary on the Sokal Affair.

2012-11-02 08:33:26

#7889

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6210|...

Dilbert_X wrote:
Shocking wrote:
Depends on the point of the published work. If you wish to forward new theories and all that you (usually) introduce your reader into the subject & influential works in the field before you start fleshing out your main argument. Hence citation. If you wish to simply give a comprehensive overview of the literature on a certain subject that usually only gets mentioned in passing by various academics your work will be riddled with references. If you wish to forward an analysis of something, more often than not it will be based on existing theories and will again include a lot of references.

In any case, citations and references will be crucial in 99% of the works presented. I don't see a problem.
The problem I see is zillions of papers being published with little or no new work, and a hell of a lot of going over old ground.
That and a lot of time students spend learning to write 'proper' papers and less on how to break new ground.

I believe the latter is a problem as well. One caused in part by what you stated and by the fact that you're not given enough time / help to do some proper research. If you're told to write some 5-7000 word paper in the span of 8 weeks using course literature it will be exactly that; lots of going over old ground and little to no new work because the limits you're presented with don't give enough room for this and because it's impossible to do any proper research in the span of 8 weeks, also considering other courses you're following.

Only once you get to write a master's thesis will you actually be given the time and help to do so. 3 years down the road. By then a lot of students probably got used to just citing a lot to prove a point.

inane little opines

2012-11-02 12:21:27

#7890

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6708

2012-11-03 02:50:03

#7891

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6316|eXtreme to the maX

Spark wrote:
once again you amaze me about your ignorance about something you claim to know so much about.

hint: there are these things called theories. people tell everyone about them. they need testing. people do experiments. they tell everyone the results.

I am familiar with how science works, thanks, having gained my MSc (with distinction, so there) a while back.

I'm griping about the paucity of academia and academics in general and their papers in particular.

Fuck Israel

2012-11-03 02:54:32

#7892

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6316|eXtreme to the maX

Shocking wrote:
I believe the latter is a problem as well. One caused in part by what you stated and by the fact that you're not given enough time / help to do some proper research. If you're told to write some 5-7000 word paper in the span of 8 weeks using course literature it will be exactly that; lots of going over old ground and little to no new work because the limits you're presented with don't give enough room for this and because it's impossible to do any proper research in the span of 8 weeks, also considering other courses you're following.

Only once you get to write a master's thesis will you actually be given the time and help to do so. 3 years down the road. By then a lot of students probably got used to just citing a lot to prove a point.

Thats the problem right there. Research by literature search has its merits in some fields but its so overdone now its becoming ridiculous.
Thats not how research should be done though, I think people have lost sight of how it should be, thanks to the academic citation machine academics depend on for their careers and students just wanting/needing a certificate.

Fuck Israel

2012-11-04 02:27:28

#7893

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6885|Canberra, AUS

Spark wrote:
the beauty of research is that you have the freedom to be completely fucking wrong all the time. that allows you intellectual freedom to do whatever you want, which is always the best way to do research.

having said all this, a few scientists really could do with a lesson in how to write in clear english.

steven weinberg, you may be a nobel laureate but i'm looking at you.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-11-04 02:53:33

#7894

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6621|'Murka

Technical writers quite often do a horrible job of explaining their thoughts in clear terms. That's why classes on technical writing exist--to help scientists who often pay no attention to the rules or aesthetics of a language get their points across.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-11-04 03:30:01

#7895

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6885|Canberra, AUS

I'm not even speaking from a layman's viewpoint though. I'm speaking as someone with fairly extensive mathematical knowledge and a strong grounding in physics, who gets infinitely frustrated at having to read each sentence three times because there are about five clauses stacked together. It's not a technical jargon problem, it's a phrasing problem.

It must be a problem specific to this textbook (quantum field theory) because everyone I've talked to has said that his other textbooks are actually perfectly readable. Readable in the most basic sense, that is - ie. you can actually read a page and comprehend what he's trying to say without insane logical jumps and bizarrely convoluted sentences.

Last edited by Spark (2012-11-04 03:32:59)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-11-04 05:55:56

#7896

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6621|'Murka

What you describe is exactly what I was referencing.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-11-04 17:35:30

#7897

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6982|PNW

FEOS wrote:
Technical writers quite often do a horrible job of explaining their thoughts in clear terms. That's why classes on technical writing exist--to help scientists who often pay no attention to the rules or aesthetics of a language get their points across.

If technical writers do a horrible job of explaining their thoughts in clear terms because of flow, they're not very good technical writers. If it's a matter of vocabulary, that's the reader's fault.

Technical writing also has more applications than documenting science.

2012-11-04 17:49:34

#7898

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5568|London, England

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Technical writers quite often do a horrible job of explaining their thoughts in clear terms. That's why classes on technical writing exist--to help scientists who often pay no attention to the rules or aesthetics of a language get their points across.
If technical writers do a horrible job of explaining their thoughts in clear terms because of flow, they're not very good technical writers. If it's a matter of vocabulary, that's the reader's fault.

Technical writing also has more applications than documenting science.

I do agree that vocabulary issues can be laid at the readers feet, but that doesn't mean that writers need to throw every million dollar word they know into every sentence in an effort to impress. It's exhausting reading that crap. It's especially exhausting when they continuously reuse the same word. I got a near perfect verbal score on my SATs and consider myself to have an extensive vocabulary, but if I have to read your work with a dictionary at my elbow just because you think running to a thesaurus every third sentence makes you sound more intelligent, you are a failure as a writer.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-11-04 18:27:18

#7899

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6621|'Murka

unnamednewbie13 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Technical writers quite often do a horrible job of explaining their thoughts in clear terms. That's why classes on technical writing exist--to help scientists who often pay no attention to the rules or aesthetics of a language get their points across.
If technical writers do a horrible job of explaining their thoughts in clear terms because of flow, they're not very good technical writers. If it's a matter of vocabulary, that's the reader's fault.

Technical writing also has more applications than documenting science.

I wasn't referring to vocabulary or jargon, really. More to the issue of flow/sentence structure. It seems that when people go highly technical, they tend to leave their basic writing skills at the door.

Vocabulary--generally--is a variable, based on genre. You simply can't get away from certain terms/concepts when writing an engineering report.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-11-04 18:27:28

#7900

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6982|PNW

@jay:

I agree with using the simplest language possible when your target audience actually includes lay readers. But if you're writing for other professionals, you should use the most descriptive terms possible. Would you rather read about motherboards or big green squares with slots and sockets?

But yeah, in general, laying your thesaurus open to pad your paper with as many obscure words as possible when more common language would suffice isn't a good idea. It's an abuse of the thesaurus, which should be used to avoid overuse of a word.

FEOS wrote:
It seems that when people go highly technical, they tend to leave their basic writing skills at the door.

This tends to happen more often than not when a writer inconsistently slips in and out of form. I've seen so many manuals shift from perfect grammar, to the clipped tone of an instruction manual, to unnecessarily-long, 80-word sentences...it's very distracting.

BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Spark wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Spark wrote:

FEOS wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Board footer