Everything should be made simple but not simpler.

[wormholeman]

I feel as though I should post this. I have noticed that a lot of people use

more of thier intellect rather than explaining in simple terms (I am also

guilty of that, but I do keep it in mind). The reason I say this is because

not everybody has the same education to a certain degree, everybodys education is different, I know there are people that know this and I can undertand why it can be a bit annoying that im saying this. But! The way I see it is, if there's a problem solve it, try not to just let it slide. I have great respect for Einstien who once said, "Everything should be made simple but not simpler". I understand this as, If I understand you and your able to succeed in what you want me to understand then I will know what your talking about.

and simpler as in "None sence".

 

I hope this can help someone.

 

Marlon

[Bluenoise]

When possible yes, but how do you explain something for which a simple explaination can't possibly exist?

Plus complex terms exist for a reason, it is alot harder to explain such things simply, not everyone is a great teacher you know?

[ecoli]

I suggest you read "Revising Prose" by Richard Lanham. It talks about how people write in the "Official Style" to sound more intellgent. If you can't understand what someone has written, the fault lies with the author, and not the reader.

 

Ego leads the pack. The Official Style is' date=' or is commonly thought to be, more imposing. IT speaks with organizational authority. Like a football helmet and shoulder pads, it makes the writer look taller, wider, more intimidating.

Fear contends with Ego for the starring role. If you work in a large organization, standing out from the crowd can kill you. Don't get identified with [i']any[/i] action because if it goes wrong, you're to blame. Imitate the style around you.

 

...All these people write, and maybe even think, in the Offical Style. The Official Style comes in many dialects- government, military, social scientific, lab scientific, MBA flapdoodle - but all exhibit the same basci attributes, a dominance of nouns and an atrophy of verbs

[timo]

When possible yes, but how do you explain something for which a simple explaination can't possibly exist?

You write "as I read in 'The Fabric of Cosmos' by Brian Greene, the branes on which the strings end start to vibrate when they collide which causes this effect" and everyone is happy.

 

On topic:

Wormeholeman, it´s rather interesting that you think things should be explained in easier terms. My perception of the treatment of physics in popular scientific debates is quite the contrary: Most problems and misunderstandings arise due to loose, incorrect or incomplete formulations. Take the infamous "E=mc²" for example. Is it really such a hard mindtwist to simply stick to "E² = (mc²)² + (pc)²" and consequently use the restmass? You miss absolutely nothing doing so since relativistic mass is just another name for energy, anyways. But you gain a whole lot like not being confused how a photon can have zero mass while it has energy.

There´s another catch in the consideration of how much to water down a scientifically valid statement in order to make it more easily understandable: If you don´t understand an explanation because the formulation was too difficult (or simply badly worded) you can always ask for clearification. If it´s oversimplified, you say "thanks for posting the Lorentz Transformations, now I understand General Relativity" and happily head for the trapdoor at the end of the alley (ok, it´s a bit of an unrealistic example as noone in here gets as technical as to post the Lorentz Transformations ...).

 

To sum it up in a single sentence: I can agree to saying "everything should be explained as simple as possible but not simpler" but imho a lot of discussion is done below the "not simpler" line.

 

Also, I´d like to wholeheartedly agree with Blueniose saying "not everyone is a good teacher". In fact, I am repeatedly impressed by how the only member here of whom I know he actually teaches physics is able to give seemingly easily understandable, yet accurate, explanations.

[silkworm]

I feel as though I should post this. I have noticed that a lot of people use

more of thier intellect rather than explaining in simple terms (I am also

guilty of that' date=' but I do keep it in mind). The reason I say this is because

not everybody has the same education to a certain degree, everybodys education is different, I know there are people that know this and I can undertand why it can be a bit annoying that im saying this. But! The way I see it is, if there's a problem solve it, try not to just let it slide. I have great respect for Einstien who once said, "Everything should be made simple but not simpler". I understand this as, If I understand you and your able to succeed in what you want me to understand then I will know what your talking about.

and simpler as in "None sence".[/quote']

 

Amen. There are many problems in "scientific communication." 1) Terminology problems (for example, the use of the word theory). 2) Failure and confusion caused to the lack of unification of symbols across the sciences. 3) Explaining things in dramatic and emotional terms and speaking with a tone that attributes Zen like qualities to non-living things. 4) Over complication, generally through snobbery to exclude unexposed people. I understand that sometimes terminology must be used, but in a public venue this does nothing for communication unless you throw the public a bone. If you don't, a lot of times the scientifically illiterate listener will attach his own meaning to the word based on its sound, which we all know is dangerous.

 

It is also true that no matter what your education you have misperceptions about science, both your specialization and others, and holes that others don't have but the others do have holes. I try get into classes with as many different instructors as possible so I can learn something about my own weaknesses by looking at each one of their differences in their perceptions, and what they admit they don't understand. My point here is, gaps even exist between PhDs in the same field, but they can be overcome with just a little effort at communicating effectively.

 

If you can't understand what someone has written, the fault lies with the author, and not the reader.

 

Amen again. I used to make my money writing (everything), and I would tell my fiction writing friends things similar to this, but they were of the thinking that understanding what is written is up to the reader and not the writer and I'd always ask them why they were writing if they have nothing to say. These people are professionals too (with a few awards here and there), so if you don't think fiction is meaningless, realize it is generally put together with the same thought and effort as infant babbling.

[wormholeman]

Thank you for your replys guys. I read all what you all wrote,

and I recieved a lot of insight on my matter. When I read

it all. I found that it was helpfull, helpfull in ways such as

a persons health reflects their attitude, thinking ect..ect.

Gererally I thought that. It seems that sometimes I have

to tolerate my matter which isn't heard for me, but I respect all

your comments about it.

 

Thankyou

 

marlon

[swansont]

If you can't understand what someone has written, the fault lies with the author, and not the reader.

 

Permit me to play Devil's Advocate here.

 

This would imply that if I saw something written in Sanskrit and couldn't understand it, then I am not at fault for not learning Sanskrit. The author is at fault for not anticipating my English language requirement. Clearly, this is BS.

 

The problem is that physics in general uses specific language, and relativity and QM in particular, are often counterintuitive and require a grounding in basic physics. When someone asks a relativity question, the one answering has to assume some level of knowledge - there is no point in rehashing basic physics if the poster already knows this, and it is a burden of time and effort on the answerer to include extra detail if it is unnecessary. It's arrogant of a poster to expect to be spoon-fed an answer (as if anyone can telepathically know what one's level of math and physics knowledge is), as if they are entitled to it. And it's fantasy to think that an explanation of a topic that takes years of study to understand can be boiled down to a paragraph or two on a bulletin board. Physics isn't easy, and there's no guarantee that you will understand it, but if your course of action is to whine about it instead of spending some time learning the basics, then pendulum is going to swing toward failure more often than success.

 

There are many problems in "scientific communication." 1) Terminology problems (for example, the use of the word theory). 2) Failure and confusion caused to the lack of unification of symbols across the sciences. 3) Explaining things in dramatic and emotional terms and speaking with a tone that attributes Zen like qualities to non-living things. 4) Over complication, generally through snobbery to exclude unexposed people. I understand that sometimes terminology must be used, but in a public venue this does nothing for communication unless you throw the public a bone. If you don't, a lot of times the scientifically illiterate listener will attach his own meaning to the word based on its sound, which we all know is dangerous.

 

OTOH, coming in with nothing is just plain laziness. Science uses precise terminology. Why should someone be expected to post ad infinitum the same definition corrections because some slacker can't be bothered to learn the scientific definition of "theory?" We've all seen the conceit of creationists, so sure that evolution is wrong, based on a number of misconceptions. How come that's my fault, all of the sudden?

 

---

As I said, that's all Devil's Advocate. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. That's why e.g. people are asked to check and see if their question has been asked before. If you don't understand an answer, say so, and the poster can go for the next level down.

[ecoli]

This would imply that if I saw something written in Sanskrit and couldn't understand it, then I am not at fault for not learning Sanskrit. The author is at fault for not anticipating my English language requirement. Clearly, this is BS.

 

 

Well, yeah. I'm talking about wirting in English, of course. This example doesn't really make sense because it's unrelated to the problem why scientific and other papers are so hard to read.

 

The problem is that physics in general uses specific language, and relativity and QM in particular, are often counterintuitive and require a grounding in basic physics. When someone asks a relativity question, the one answering has to assume some level of knowledge - there is no point in rehashing basic physics if the poster already knows this, and it is a burden of time and effort on the answerer to include extra detail if it is unnecessary. It's arrogant of a poster to expect to be spoon-fed an answer (as if anyone can telepathically know what one's level of math and physics knowledge is),

 

This is, of course all true. But even people of the same profession in a purposefully difficult way so that even their collegues have difficulty understanding. I've seen this happen in certain papers. They make there words more confusing, so when the reader reads the paper they'll say "I don't understand what this paper says, because the author is so intellegent." While truth may very well be that the reader didn't understand the paper, because the author's writing style is unclear and "official." It is the duty of the author to insure that his writing is understandable, it's not the readers job, or rather that is shouldn't be, to decipher what the author meant.

 

 

as if they are entitled to it. And it's fantasy to think that an explanation of a topic that takes years of study to understand can be boiled down to a paragraph or two on a bulletin board. Physics isn't easy, and there's no guarantee that you will understand it, but if your course of action is to whine about it instead of spending some time learning the basics, then pendulum is going to swing toward failure more often than success.

 

It's the same as above, you can study physics for years and years, but your still not going to understand "poor writing"

 

 

Here's an example from Lanham's book that shows this.

 

The establishment of an error detection mechanism is necessary to establish a sense of independence in our own movement planning and correction

 

You see?... one can kind of see what the sentence is trying to say, and it's obvious it's not talking about some sort of higher physics. But, translated into PLain style, the sentence reads:

 

Unles we know what we are doing something wrong, we can't correct it

 

wow... that's a huge difference, yet the meaning is the same, and a hundred times clearer. This is the sort of passive voicing used in "official" papers to make the author sound smarter.

 

In the first statement, you might say "I can't understand what they author is saying... I must be dumber then the author." You only think you aren't smart enought to understand the authors meaning, when in actuality, it was just the author being unclear.

[5614]

Well, yeah. I'm talking about wirting in English, of course. This example doesn't really make sense because it's unrelated to the problem why scientific and other papers are so hard to read.

I disagree, I think it is quite related.

 

The people who write these papers are, to you, writing in a different language (in that you cannot understand it).

 

However you must realised that the people who write these papers really couldn't care less whether you can read it or not. They made that paper for a well educated professional audience who have spent many years studying a specific branch of science.

 

You say:

"If you can't understand what someone has written, the fault lies with the author, and not the reader."

And again I have to disagree.

 

If a book is written for a specific audience (lets say a well educated professional audience) and they understand it then it is a good, well written book. If an average off the street person picks up the book and does not understand it then oh well, it was not written nor intended for them.

 

If the intended audience cannot understand a paper/book then the writer has failed, but if the intended audience can understand it (like they can in terms of scientific papers) then the author has done his job well.

 

Surely what you should be arguing is that scientific papers should be published for a wider audience so that more people can understand them.

[ecoli]

Surely what you should be arguing is that scientific papers I should be published for a wider audience so that more people can understand them.

 

While that's not a bad idea, it certainly wasn't my point. I stated that journals written for scientists, the reader does need a certain background to understand the paper. But, if the reader has the necessary background, but still find the paper over flibit's head, then fault lies not with the reader, but the writer. This was my point, and what I have been trying to say from the beginning.

 

The reason why I said I didn't like the sanskrit analogy was because I didn't realize it was an anology at the time.

[5614]

if the reader has the necessary background, but still find the paper over flibit's head, then fault lies not with the reader, but the writer. This was my point, and what I have been trying to say from the beginning.

Oh ok, in that case we both missed part of what the other one was saying.

 

I thought you were saying that the papers were written badly (as in you couldn't understand it) -- which is wrong.

 

And I did say about the intended audience stuff. So if you reread that then it's obvious that I agree with what you just said (in the quote).

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

YOn topic:

Wormeholeman' date=' it´s rather interesting that you think things should be explained in easier terms. My perception of the treatment of physics in popular scientific debates is quite the contrary: Most problems and misunderstandings arise due to loose, incorrect or incomplete formulations. Take the infamous "E=mc²" for example. Is it really such a hard mindtwist to simply stick to "E² = (mc²)² + (pc)²" and consequently use the restmass? You miss absolutely nothing doing so since relativistic mass is just another name for energy, anyways. But you gain a whole lot like not being confused how a photon can have zero mass while it has energy.[/quote']

This, I think, is the most important point in this thread. You can't be too simple or misunderstandings will result.

 

There´s another catch in the consideration of how much to water down a scientifically valid statement in order to make it more easily understandable: If you don´t understand an explanation because the formulation was too difficult (or simply badly worded) you can always ask for clearification. If it´s oversimplified, you say "thanks for posting the Lorentz Transformations, now I understand General Relativity" and happily head for the trapdoor at the end of the alley (ok, it´s a bit of an unrealistic example as noone in here gets as technical as to post the Lorentz Transformations ...).

Of course. Perhaps the best philosophy here would not be to be exceedingly simple, but to write technically with a very good explanation to go along with it. That way the technical folks are satisfied, and people new to the area get understanding from it as well.

[ecoli]

Oh ok' date=' in that case we both missed part of what the other one was saying.

 

I thought you were saying that the papers were written badly (as in you couldn't understand it) -- which is wrong.

 

And I did say about the intended audience stuff. So if you reread that then it's obvious that I agree with what you just said (in the quote).[/quote']

 

indeed, sorry for the confusion.

 

This, I think, is the most important point in this thread. You can't be too simple or misunderstandings will result.

 

Yes, but there's a difference between "dumbing down" your paper and writing in the Plain Style. The former results in bad science, the latter a coherent, well-written argument.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, but there's a difference between "dumbing down" your paper and writing in the Plain Style. The former results in bad science, the latter a coherent, well-written argument.

Indeed. It's just hard to do the right way, as there's a fine line between them.

[silkworm]

OTOH, coming in with nothing is just plain laziness. Science uses precise terminology. Why should someone be expected to post ad infinitum the same definition corrections because some slacker can't be bothered to learn the scientific definition of "theory?" We've all seen the conceit of creationists, so sure that evolution is wrong, based on a number of misconceptions. How come that's my fault, all of the sudden?

 

WTF is OTOH? That should be point enough in itself.

 

These misconceptions are cleared up with a solid effort at communication. I'm not saying there still wouldn't be people who would make an effort to be scientifically illiterate, but there would be less scientifically illiterate people if science made an effort to speak their language.

 

I've been studying science for a little over a year, I know that makes me a baby compared to most in here, but the language doesn't bother me all that much but I do notice it is a problem with people who don't take science seriously.

 

The thing that is killing me though is that symbols in science and math are not unified. And when row and p is used in the same equation, Who the hell thought that was a good idea? All of these symbols should look as different as possible and mean the same thing in math, chemistry, physics, biology, whereever, to facilitate in learning and communicating the concept. I don't care about the historical significance of these symbols, and progress is a hell of a lot more valuable than tradition.

[ecoli]

WTF is OTOH? That should be point enough in itself.

 

On the other hand.

[wormholeman]

This is interesting. If Einstein said "Everything should be made simple but not simpler", why is he guilty of speaking in those terms. When I first read what

he said, I thought he was speaking in a kind of code and it stuck with me ever since, I believed what I thought to be true. So I may be at fault with this. I am confused.

 

I don't know..

[bascule]

As a Singularitarian I believe that physics will eventually be made more common sense...

 

...but it will happen as a result of Intelligence Aplification technology and ubiquitous accessibility of human knowledge for most (hopefully all) individuals.

 

When you have a complete comprehension of all the underlying mathematics (by making all the requisite knowledge accessible over the Internet at the speed of human thought) and computer assisted mathematical thinking (to the point where you can perform symbolic mathematical operations "in your head" at the same speed as a computer because a computer is executing the mathematical operations for you), physics should hopefully become quite simple for the average person.

[swansont]

WTF is OTOH? That should be point enough in itself.

Gotta love the irony of not defining what WTF means...

 

These misconceptions are cleared up with a solid effort at communication. I'm not saying there still wouldn't be people who would make an effort to be scientifically illiterate, but there would be less scientifically illiterate people if science made an effort to speak their language.

 

There would be fewer scientifically literate people if they made more of an effort to learn science, too.

 

I've been studying science for a little over a year' date=' I know that makes me a baby compared to most in here, but the language doesn't bother me all that much but I do notice it is a problem with people who don't take science seriously.

 

The thing that is killing me though is that symbols in science and math are not unified. And when row and p is used in the same equation, Who the hell thought that was a good idea? All of these symbols should look as different as possible and mean the same thing in math, chemistry, physics, biology, whereever, to facilitate in learning and communicating the concept. I don't care about the historical significance of these symbols, and progress is a hell of a lot more valuable than tradition.[/quote']

 

So you want everyone else to relearn a new set of symbols so that you you have to do less work? I refer you to my previous comments about arrogance and laziness. The fact of the matter is that there are far more physical variables than there are letters in the alphabets (modern latin + Greek). So suck it up and learn like the rest of us did.

[wormholeman]

Gotta love the irony of not defining what WTF means...

 

 

 

There would be fewer scientifically literate people if they made more of an effort to learn science' date=' too.

 

 

 

So you want everyone else to relearn a new set of symbols so that you you have to do less work? I refer you to my previous comments about arrogance and laziness. The fact of the matter is that there are far more physical variables than there are letters in the alphabets (modern latin + Greek). So suck it up and learn like the rest of us did.[/quote']

 

Hmm, I dont know. I'd gladly do anything that that makes a big impact and involves less work. That would indeed be Great.

[Klaynos]

Symbols are completely arbitary in most cases and as long as you define your usage of them clearly and correctly in your text then there's no problem :| One of my lectures last year spent a whole semester calling one symbol he was using "squiggle" and then the lower case version became "squirrel" it didn't make any difference to the equations as we all knew what he was talking about :|

[wormholeman]

Symbols are completely arbitary in most cases and as long as you define your usage of them clearly and correctly in your text then there's no problem :| One of my lectures last year spent a whole semester calling one symbol he was using "squiggle" and then the lower case version became "squirrel" it didn't make any difference to the equations as we all knew what he was talking about :|

 

 

That is a good example.

[silkworm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by silkworm

WTF is OTOH? That should be point enough in itself.

 

On the other hand.

 

Thanks for the help' date=' ecoli, otherwise I never would have known. I know the expression "on the other hand," but if it wasn't for you I never would have connected these dots.

 

Gotta love the irony of not defining what WTF means...

 

I was proving a point. I'm too tired to know if you're joking.

 

There would be fewer scientifically literate people if they made more of an effort to learn science, too.

 

Preaching to the choir, however a crowd of English speakers can sing with us too as long as the song isn't in Latin, and understand the song too if the lyrics are clear and composed of words free of double meanings.

 

So you want everyone else to relearn a new set of symbols so that you you have to do less work?

 

Actually, I personally won't benefit from it very much because I've already dealt with the symbols problem, however I do see the possibilities easing the process of learning science and math for to those who are doing it for the first time by unified symbols. So I guess I will benefit, by society benefitting as a whole.

 

Why would you want to make more work than necessary? Why make any effort less productive than it can be? That's like arguing why make a car engine more fuel effecient, I only got 10 miles a gallon in the 60s?

 

I refer you to my previous comments about arrogance and laziness.

 

I don't see the basis on calling me lazy or arrogant, if you knew me you'd think that is incredibly silly. Don't you think it's lazy and arrogant to not to want to fix flaws in a system just because you suffered by them and you find ammusement in others suffering as well? Embracing any tradition as the final system leads to paralysis, and I thought science was about progress.

 

The fact of the matter is that there are far more physical variables than there are letters in the alphabets (modern latin + Greek).

 

Who says they have to be letters? They can be shapes, little pictures, anything that tries not to look alike (especially when used in the same areas), and mean the same thing no matter what subject your studying.

 

So suck it up and learn like the rest of us did.

 

If it's all the same to you, I'd rather make it easier on myself. Whenever I'm learning something in physics or calculus or chemistry that overlaps I normally take awhile translating and unifying the symbols so I understand the point each is getting at.

 

Symbols are completely arbitary in most cases and as long as you define your usage of them clearly and correctly in your text then there's no problem :| One of my lectures last year spent a whole semester calling one symbol he was using "squiggle" and then the lower case version became "squirrel" it didn't make any difference to the equations as we all knew what he was talking about :|

 

It is true, symbols are arbitrary, but what if they weren't. Say that this symbol he was using for something that you'd seen in another class and you knew what it meant. As soon as he wrote it on the board you'd have known exactly what it meant.

 

And just think, with unified symbols, anytime you'd see a new equation you could potentially have a full understanding of the meaning of these relationships immediately, without having to poke around and find out what each symbol means in this discipline. It would make these relationships more readily available.

 

I can't be the only one who sees the power in this.

 

We need to make science more accessible if we really want to make it more accepted.

[Klaynos]

That would mean memorising hundreds of symbols.

 

Also what would people (and by people I mean researchers) do when they require a new symbol for something, apply to some international watch dog to be allowed to put another line throught the equalateral triangle with the verticle cross in it? I know just as an undergraduate when doing labs I come accross variables that I havn't been told a set letter for and if I have been then I've forgotten it because it's superfulouse knowledge, I just pick a letter or symbol that I feels appropriate and make a note of what I'm using it as.

[Klaynos]

Double post - my appologies....