I would like to thank everyone for their comments. This was my first post to Slashdot, as I only discovered it earlier this week (call me sheltered). Some of the comments left were very insightful and helpful, while other were not (i.e. constructive criticism/suggested readings/personal insight vs. what amounted to name calling, or even questioning my ethical integrity). However, I do realize that this is how the internet works, and "sticks and stones" etc.
Now, I wanted to address a two themes I thought were interesting throughout many of the comments you left me.
1) Assumptions in Science: good or bad?
A: Ultimately, unless your area of research covers the finest of analytical fields, assumptions are unavoidable. Its how you approach them that makes you a good or bad scientist.
Take ecologists as an example - they study intrinsically complicated systems, with many known and unknown variables changing, over a gradient of environmental pressures. What is analytical and precise about that? Not much. Thus, many fields require certain assumptions. Are these assumptions unfounded and made up by the scientist? Of course not: they are based on previous theories that have met the test of rigorous investigation (i.e. standing on the shoulders of giants).
The point I aimed to make through my essay was: the relative scope these assumptions (which are in fact well laid out in academic publications) cover is difficult to understand as a lay person.
2) Scientists are/aren't able to write to a lay audience
I half agree - there are brilliant bumbling scientists out there who couldn't explain a movie plot to someone who just watched it with them, never mind their own research. However, are all scientists this way? Not at all. I have met some brilliant people, whose metaphors and analogies I admired so much, I use them myself when explaining my work. Furthermore, I think with any formal training, anyone can write accurately (yes, this may cause an uproar, but bare with me please). Beautifully? Elegantly? Perhaps not, but writing as a tool for imparting information, in my opinion, doesn't necessarily require these (although, they do make for an infinitely better read).
Those two points said, I never aimed to "attack" science journalists, journalists, scientists, etc. It was simply a piece of insight I had thinking alone in my office one day.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to thank everyone for their comments. This was my first post to Slashdot, as I only discovered it earlier this week (call me sheltered). Some of the comments left were very insightful and helpful, while other were not (i.e. constructive criticism/suggested readings/personal insight vs. what amounted to name calling, or even questioning my ethical integrity). However, I do realize that this is how the internet works, and "sticks and stones" etc. Now, I wanted to address a two themes I thought were interesting throughout many of the comments you left me. 1) Assumptions in Science: good or bad? A: Ultimately, unless your area of research covers the finest of analytical fields, assumptions are unavoidable. Its how you approach them that makes you a good or bad scientist. Take ecologists as an example - they study intrinsically complicated systems, with many known and unknown variables changing, over a gradient of environmental pressures. What is analytical and precise about that? Not much. Thus, many fields require certain assumptions. Are these assumptions unfounded and made up by the scientist? Of course not: they are based on previous theories that have met the test of rigorous investigation (i.e. standing on the shoulders of giants). The point I aimed to make through my essay was: the relative scope these assumptions (which are in fact well laid out in academic publications) cover is difficult to understand as a lay person. 2) Scientists are/aren't able to write to a lay audience I half agree - there are brilliant bumbling scientists out there who couldn't explain a movie plot to someone who just watched it with them, never mind their own research. However, are all scientists this way? Not at all. I have met some brilliant people, whose metaphors and analogies I admired so much, I use them myself when explaining my work. Furthermore, I think with any formal training, anyone can write accurately (yes, this may cause an uproar, but bare with me please). Beautifully? Elegantly? Perhaps not, but writing as a tool for imparting information, in my opinion, doesn't necessarily require these (although, they do make for an infinitely better read). Those two points said, I never aimed to "attack" science journalists, journalists, scientists, etc. It was simply a piece of insight I had thinking alone in my office one day.