Glen 'n all, Another example: I had to work out (and I am not entirely sure, even now) what Marcus had in mind by "subject" in "subject neutral": subject = the person who is speaking, as in "a subjective utterance"; or subject = the thing the person is talking about, as in "the subject of the conversation".
Every man, of course, thinks his own words are plain. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([email protected]) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: glen e. p. ropella <[email protected]> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > Date: 9/16/2009 8:42:47 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] comm. (was Re: FW: Re:EmergenceSeminar--BritishEmergence) > > Thus spake Marcus G. Daniels circa 09/16/2009 06:49 AM: > > Miles Parker wrote: > >> What is different about scientific discourse? Is it intent? Context? > >> > > 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? True, we can infer many of the properties of a > BIBBLEGONK from the usage, here. It must be able to be agitated and we > have to be able to sluice from it either with something built into it or > with an attachment. But a better way would be to find out precisely > what it is, which involves thinking at least enough about the subject to > do an internet search or to ask someone local who might know something > about these experiments, the equipment required, and the people who > conduct them. > > I.e. it's not entirely subject neutral. > > This sort of thing happens all the time when one lab reproduces the > experiments of another lab, especially when the experiments are > spatially or temporally distant. > > In that sense, I posit that easily reproducible scientific discourse is > most definitely NOT subject neutral. Ideally, you'd want to record > _everything_ about not just the non-subject elements of the experiment, > but about the people executing the experiment and the conditions under > which they executed it. 99.999...% of that data would be unnecessary. > But in the situation where reproduction proves elusive, it can be mined > for salient differences that will help the new lab reproduce the result. > > Again, as long as the simpler model is adequate for the use, you use it. > If it's not, you extend it. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com > > > ============================================================ > 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 ============================================================ 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
