dvasya comments on Rationality Quotes: June 2011 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: Oscar_Cunningham 01 June 2011 08:17AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (470)
Tags: quotes

Comments (470)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: dvasya 01 June 2011 05:28:39PM *  7 points [-]

Sorry for length, but this a nice sketch on the role of rationality in science :)

A glossary for research reports

Scientific term (Actual meaning)

It has long been known that. . . . (I haven’t bothered to look up the original reference)

. . . of great theoretical and practical importance (. . . interesting to me)

While it has not been possible to provide definite answers to these questions . . . (The experiments didn’t work out, but I figured I could at least get a publication out of it)

The W-Pb system was chosen as especially suitable to show the predicted behaviour. . . . (The fellow in the next lab had some already made up)

High-purity || Very high purity || Extremely high purity || Super-purity || Spectroscopically pure . . . (Composition unknown except for the exaggerated claims of the supplier)

A fiducial reference line . . . (A scratch)

Three of the samples were chosen for detailed study . . . (The results on the others didn’t make sense and were ignored)

. . . accidentally strained during mounting (. . . dropped on the floor)

. . . handled with extreme care throughout the experiments (. . . not dropped on the floor)

Typical results are shown . . . (The best results are shown)

Although some detail has been lost in reproduction, it is clear from the original micrograph that . . . (It is impossible to tell from the micrograph)

Presumably at longer times . . . (I didn’t take time to find out)

The agreement with the predicted curve is excellent (fair) || good (poor) || satisfactory (doubtful) || fair (imaginary) || . . as good as could be expected (non-existent)

These results will be reported at a later date (I might possibly get around to this sometime)

The most reliable values are those of Jones (He was a student of mine)

It is suggested that || It is believed that || It may be that . . . (I think)

It is generally believed that . . . (A couple of other guys think so too)

It might be argued that . . . (I have such a good answer to this objection that I shall now raise it)

It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding . . . (I don’t understand it)

Unfortunately, a quantitative theory to account for these effects has not been formulated (Neither does anybody else)

Correct within an order of magnitude (Wrong)

It is to be hoped that this work will stimulate further work in the field (This paper isn’t very good, but neither are any of the others in this miserable subject)

Thanks are due to Joe Glotz for assistance with the experiments and to John Doe for valuable discussions (Glotz did the work and Doe explained what it meant)

C. D. Graham, Jr., Metal. Progress 71, 75 (1957) (actual source)

Comment author: MixedNuts 01 June 2011 08:47:06PM 8 points [-]

Funny, but I don't think it is the criticism of science it seems to be. Some items just point out that papers are formal, like

It is suggested that || It is believed that || It may be that . . . (I think)

Yeah, that's what it means. What's your point? (Well, it is useful at face value for people who don't understand formal language, but it's not trying to be.)

Others look like criticism but aren't, like

. . . accidentally strained during mounting (. . . dropped on the floor)

Yes, it's an amusing way of phrasing it, but there's noting wrong with the fact or with the phrasing - the meaning gets across!

Some do show scientists obfuscating problems, like

Typical results are shown . . . (The best results are shown)

but none of them are new. It has long been known that scientists tend to ignore negative results and the like. The most reliable values are those of Ben Goldacre.

Also,

Correct within an order of magnitude (Wrong)

Is just plain correct within an order of magnitude. If I compute the mass of the sun from a weight of a rock in my hands and the shadows of two sticks, being correct within an order of magnitude is incredibly precise.

Comment author: dvasya 02 June 2011 03:44:58PM *  1 point [-]

I don't think this was intended as a criticism of science... ;)

Comment author: MixedNuts 06 June 2011 06:42:41AM 1 point [-]

Small-s science the process that's in fact implemented, not big-S Science the ideal. Though admittedly formality and obfuscation in journal papers isn't a necessary part of current science (as opposed to publish-or-perish in general).

Comment author: Will_Sawin 12 June 2011 06:52:24PM 1 point [-]

Or perhaps to make fun of scientists as, for instance, people who drop things on the floor.

Comment author: Apprentice 03 June 2011 02:07:41PM 2 points [-]

It might be argued that . . . (I have such a good answer to this objection that I shall now raise it)

My favorite - I do this all the time.

It is clear that much additional work will be required before a complete understanding . . . (I don’t understand it)

Yeah, this one's familiar too. There's a long-ass section in my thesis that basically ends with this. So much data - so little sense.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit