On 10/13/10 6:56 AM October 13, 2010, [email protected] wrote:
(Apologies for top-posting, via phone)
You can be forgiven for top-posting, but not for posting via phone.
If a lay reader's criticism of a theorist's language is legitimate, is a
layperson equally right to criticise technical language in a scientific
discussion that her education has not equipped her to follow, as obtuse?
I think that any person at any time is justified in criticizing language
usage that obscures rather than clarifying matters.
Some technical and scientific jargon exists largely to establish an
arcane priesthood from which the lay person is excluded.
It's fairly easy to determine whether language is being used as an aid
or barrier to communication. Take an outsider who expresses interest in
the topic. If the insider can offer a brief explanation that, while it
might gloss over some details, provides the basic outline of the
language being used, then the technical terms are being used to
describe. If, instead, the insider adopts a superior attitude, resorts
to more complicated jargon, or simply dismisses the outsider's interest,
the jargon is being used primarily to exclude.
The same terms, of course, can be used precisely by certain individuals
and in an obfuscating fashion by others.
Ruby programmers are notorious for using jargon to prop up their
(imagined) position of technical superiority. Java programmers, on the
other hand, use cutesy jargon in an attempt to make their language seem
cuddlier and more accessible.
I've never met a physicist or mathematician who didn't delight in
attempting to explain complex areas of their field in plain English.
Physicists in particular are often quite good at it, a clear sign that
the jargon in their field attempts to describe rather than obscure their
field.
If so, can I bring up the criticism the next time a Silk thread begins on
developments in, say, physics, or computer science?
Only if it applies.
If not, why not? Is it because cultural theory owes it to laypeople to be less
academic, or to adopt more egalitarian stances? If this is so, why should it be
strange that a theorist talks about her own identity in a talk which, going by
its title is about -- herself? Why does her choice of name or her reference to
her background come up out of context as a matter for discussion?
Genuinely curious.
I'll fall back on an old programming adage:
If you can't explain what you're doing to a child or lay person, chances
are good that you don't understand it well enough to code it.
The soft sciences are more susceptible to proof by hand-waving than
mathematics, engineering, or the hard sciences. You can't sweep your
errors under a rug when a bridge falls down, a system crashes, or your
theory incorrectly calculates the position of the planet Mercury. The
soft sciences are squidgey, and so it's appropriate to subject their
claims to the kind of rigorous review that reality demands of the hard ones.
--
Heather Madrone ([email protected]) http://www.madrone.com
http://www.sunsplinter.blogspot.com
I'd love to change the world, but they won't give me access to the source code.
