glen e. p. ropella wrote:
Scientific writing aims to facilitate the reader in understanding how to
reproduce a result. It must be subject neutral.
"Must" is too strong. Here's an (obviously contrived) example. Let's
say a document says something like: "Next, add 500 mL of gel to a
BIBBLEGONK, agitate for 30 seconds, and sluice into 5 250 mL petri dishes."
How do we determine what a BIBBLEGONK is? Can we do it in an entirely
subject neutral way?
I think there should be a reference in the paper for BIBLEGONK. If
there isn't, then it is probably well understood in the field what it
means, and in that sense it remains subject neutral; the reader is
expected to have certain training or background. That's different then
them building a generous model of what the writer is trying to say.
I don't want to argue the point as to whether the academic literature
does an appropriate of making ideas accessible to outsiders. I find I
read a lot of stuff where the idea being conveyed ends up being pretty
simple, but I have to wade through piles of jargon to get that simple
point. The whole first half of Science with its condensed versions of
the papers I often find harder to read than the articles themselves.
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
