
The Language of Science - HugoDaniel
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-language-of-science/
======
caiobegotti
These days the language of science in popular media always remind me of Carl
Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World with science as a candle in the dark and while
corpora analysis is cool to create a bunch of word stats I believe modern
science (supported by the recent steady lack of change in its language as
shown in one of the article graphs) has inherently a problem of discourse and
not of words to be clearer to the layperson. Discourse in the storytelling
sense that appeal to their specific audience, but also not like those flourish
articles that start like a romance which are pretty preposterous. In that way,
perhaps, dunno, it's impossible to have a language of science that is
efficient today while at the same time trying to appeal to everybody as it
would be impossible to have an universal discourse that appeals equally to a
person on minimum wage and a trader with a nice suit... in the end any
universal language of science no matter how well its words are selected will
fail, due to bad discourse IMHO.

~~~
keenmaster
"in the end any universal language of science no matter how well its words are
selected will fail, due to bad discourse IMHO."

Can you clarify on what you mean by bad scientific discourse, and why it is
inevitable?

~~~
unabst
In my words, because I agree: We are all entangled and entrenched in our self-
interests and group interests, and cannot undermine the profit motive or the
need to win. Scientists are just players in a vast field of this entrenchment
who do not always get the last word, nor win, nor able to always stick
strictly to the science to begin with.

~~~
keenmaster
Self interest, group interest, and profit are, in my opinion, part of the
picture of producing good science. Something would be amiss without them. Good
science happens at some desirable equilibrium between those and other factors.
Perhaps we have deviated from that equilibrium, but it's not because of bad
faith, adversarial sabotage. In my opinion, the root of the problem is that
the very system for communication and exchange among scientists needs to be
updated.

Any good system keeps malincentives in check. In the political realm, that
would be America's system of checks and balances. Perhaps it needs updating,
but it has served us very well. Critically, America's political system does
_not_ fundamentally remove the desire for competitive sabotage. It takes that
desire and channels it into something good, while precluding the worst
outcomes through a system of checks and balances. Those checks and balances
are themselves adversarial in nature. America's founding fathers implicitly
took the view that everyone is capable of wrong. Rationality is an emergent
product of competition. We have to be careful not to pin too much blame on
competitive behavior, even if it seems polemical, domineering, and protective.
The system of scientific discourse requires more attention. Moreover, we have
to fundamentally believe that it can be improved. If we don't, then we won't
start to improve it, resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

All that being said, I'm talking about improving something that is already
very good. The progress in almost all fields of science in the last 10-20
years has been mind-blowing. Some of it has already born fruit, and some areas
of research, like graphene perhaps, will amaze the biggest cynics in the
future with their transformational output.

~~~
unabst
Two issues.

First, no math problem or physics problem or chemistry problem or science
problem involves politics or ethics. Give great scientists a great problem,
and they will solve it. It's always up to the administrators and managers and
executives to tell them when to stop, often by cutting funding or firing.
These are not the scientists, though they may be made to represent them.

Ethics and politics is a completely separate discipline from logic and
science. But often those doing the logic and science aren't given a say. They
are just placed in their labs and made comfortable.

Second, most scientists know when they are right. You can check your work. You
know how you did it. You are aware of what you understand. And being right is
mostly enough in a purely scientific context.

But in the real world, you have the Donald and an endless army of careerists
who don't mind serving for a naked king that get to decide what is right.

For the most part I don't believe scientists have much of a communication
problem. They trade information and are happy to make progress. That's about
it.

------
unabst
The truth is not enough. It needs promoting and needs to be fought for. But
the best paid promoters and fighters can win regardless of how true anything
is, allowing those with the power and money to select the truth that suits
them. And rarely are scientists good fighters.

