Scientific thread posting advice.

[DanTrentfield]

Here at SFN I've found a common problem: People like to make things that needn't be complex, complex to make themselves look more knowledgeable on a topic. There are places where complexity is necessary, such as is the case with many explanations with large amounts of complex mathematical equations and explanations for those equations, but there are also places where complexity simply isn't necessary. One piece of advice on posting scientific threads on SFN is: Don't make things more complex than they need to be, Remember that the simplest explanations are not only the ones that will carry the most weight with your opponent in debate, but will be the easiest for all to understand, and will leave the least doubt that you are attempting to use misinformation to influence the argument, or any other foul play.

 

[studiot]

Go well with your chemistry studies, Dan, but please remember there is much overlap with Physics (and other sciences).

 

Sometimes, however, there are distinct differences.

 

Energy is very important in Chemistry, but beware sign conventions.

 

Chemists use the very understandable convention that energy out is negative and energy in is positive, whatever form that energy takes.

 

So they write the law of conservation of energy (or the first law of thermodynamics)

 

dU (or dE) = q + w

 

The change in internal energy is the sum of the heat supplied to and the work done on a system.

 

Physicists use an older, more complicated convention.

With them , heat evolved is negative but work evolved is positive.

 

dU = q - w

 

This causes an enormous amount of confusion for the unwary when reading the literature.

 

The Physicists' convention is also used by engineers since they developed it for heat engines where heat was supplied (+ve) for the engine to do useful work (also considered +ve)

Edited April 28, 2016 by studiot

[Mordred]

Here at SFN I've found a common problem: People like to make things that needn't be complex, complex to make themselves look more knowledgeable on a topic. There are places where complexity is necessary, such as is the case with many explanations with large amounts of complex mathematical equations and explanations for those equations, but there are also places where complexity simply isn't necessary. One piece of advice on posting scientific threads on SFN is: Don't make things more complex than they need to be, Remember that the simplest explanations are not only the ones that will carry the most weight with your opponent in debate, but will be the easiest for all to understand, and will leave the least doubt that you are attempting to use misinformation to influence the argument, or any other foul play.

 

While good advise I wish more people would post the related math (preferably in latex). Also it's often useful to provide a study aid when answering questions.

In many replies the needed details are often lacking direction for the OP to self study.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Mordred

[Phi for All]

Here at SFN I've found a common problem: People like to make things that needn't be complex, complex to make themselves look more knowledgeable on a topic.

 

I'm not sure how you know the motive ("to make themselves look more knowledgeable"), but I don't see this type of behavior much. What I see more of, which looks a lot like making things unnecessarily complex, is members having to correct terminology and processes in order not to lead people who don't have a lot of science knowledge in the wrong direction.

 

Also, for the average science geek, it's almost impossible to let the little wrongs go uncorrected. If something is incorrect, you give it tacit approval if you don't say something (at least it feels that way sometimes).

 

Science IS complex. You can't avoid it. That's why you need precision, clarity, and a shared terminology to make things as easily understandable as possible. I think a lot of complexity is added when people are making up their own "logic" and "theories" and asking everyone to change the way they use certain words.

[timo]

I agree that trying to keep statements as simple and to-the-point as possible is a good idea in many cases. My reasons for this, however, may be a bit different than yours (also see my nitpicking below):

 

First, I am a firm believer in the theory that quality is the most important property of information (on a technical level - on a social level attention given to it may be even more relevant). Quantity is usually not an issue and arguably even a problem. Almost every Google (or Google Scholar) search comes up with more relevant results than I could ever handle in my whole life. And still I usually find a Google search insufficient to get relevant information for most things less trivial than the weather forecast.

 

Secondly, if I post something then I am usually a bit interested in the issue and want to understand it myself. And to do that want to get a clear picture in my mind that I understand and somewhat trust. Complexity introduces potential sources of errors and, well, makes the picture in my own mind less clear.

 

 

Remember that the simplest explanations are not only the ones that will carry the most weight with your opponent in debate, but will be the easiest for all to understand, and will leave the least doubt that you are attempting to use misinformation to influence the argument, or any other foul play.

 

Sorry for nitpicking on a single word, and maybe I put too much weight on it. But the term "opponent" really stuck out for me. I don't consider you my opponent. And I don't post with the attitude of having to battle someone or their opinion since confrontative arguing on the Internet is ... well, it's like arguing on the Internet.

[Phi for All]

Sorry for nitpicking on a single word, and maybe I put too much weight on it. But the term "opponent" really stuck out for me. I don't consider you my opponent. And I don't post with the attitude of having to battle someone or their opinion since confrontative arguing on the Internet is ... well, it's like arguing on the Internet.

 

This is a very good point. Arguing over an idea can seem like a debate. Pointing out mistakes can seem like pouncing on weakness. Discussing science can seem like a competition, but in the end it should be about learning something meaningful that you can trust as reliable scientific information, something you can use to expand your knowledge.

 

It's hard to espouse even mainstream knowledge without seeming to "defend" "attacks" against it. Perhaps I've participated in too many "Einstein was WRONG!" discussions.

[Mordred]

Perhaps I've participated in too many "Einstein was WRONG!" discussions.

I'm definitely guilty on that end. Also being one of a select few members responding with math in physics and speculation forums I can honestly say I take a serious effort in using the simplist forms of the majority of the equations I post.

 

Unfortunately keeping those posts as simple as possible has often led to even further confusion. (One of the reasons I try to avoid too much Einstein notation) or langrene's

 

Usually I supplement my posts with further study material to assist the OP. Unfortunately often they don't get ready by the OP.

(Understandable in some cases, as ones eyes can gloss over due to the metrics involved)

 

The rule I follow is to attempt to be as thorough as possible on a forum without trying to teach an entire chapter in a textbook lol.

[DanTrentfield]

 

I'm not sure how you know the motive ("to make themselves look more knowledgeable"), but I don't see this type of behavior much. What I see more of, which looks a lot like making things unnecessarily complex, is members having to correct terminology and processes in order not to lead people who don't have a lot of science knowledge in the wrong direction.

 

Also, for the average science geek, it's almost impossible to let the little wrongs go uncorrected. If something is incorrect, you give it tacit approval if you don't say something (at least it feels that way sometimes).

 

Science IS complex. You can't avoid it. That's why you need precision, clarity, and a shared terminology to make things as easily understandable as possible. I think a lot of complexity is added when people are making up their own "logic" and "theories" and asking everyone to change the way they use certain words.

I'm talking more about the so called 'trash can' that is speculations than anywhere else. And at the same time I'm trying to help the SFN community a bit by calling the few people who would make something look more complex just to appear knowledgeable on a specific topic as stated in the OP. But you're absolutely right that science is complex and thusly requires complex explanations and reams of equations to explain theories and phenomenah, but at the same time there are simple questions like "are photons massless particles?" that don't need 500 lines of equations to be asked, Because it's not really a question if it already has an answer now is it?

[John Cuthber]

...There are places where complexity is necessary, such as is the case with many explanations with large amounts of complex mathematical equations and explanations for those equations, but there are also places where complexity simply isn't necessary. ...

 

Who gets to decide what is necessary?

[ajb]

It is a balancing act between being technically correct and tailoring the answer to the questioner. It is not easy and on a forum like this, it is often hard to judge the knowedge of the members. Though sometimes it is easy.

Edited April 29, 2016 by ajb

[swansont]

I'm talking more about the so called 'trash can' that is speculations than anywhere else.

 

 

I know some people refer to the trash can, but it is not speculations. It's a subfolder within speculations, much like you might have a trash can in your office. But you would (probably*) not call your office the trash can, just because it has a trash can in it.

 

*maybe you would. But I've never encountered such behavior

[Phi for All]

And at the same time I'm trying to help the SFN community a bit by calling the few people who would make something look more complex just to appear knowledgeable on a specific topic as stated in the OP.

 

Again you assign a motive of making "something look more complex just to appear knowledgeable on a specific topic". You're guessing about this. I could do the same thing and say the reason you're doing this is to put these people down because you think they make you look bad. Or that you want us to dumb everything down for you. Or loosen our rules so you don't have to be as rigorous. I'm just guessing, of course.

 

How can you tell the difference between someone who is trying to participate in the exchange of knowledge on a science discussion forum, and someone who is just doing it to appear more knowledgeable?

[StringJunky]

It's my experience here that it isn't that forum member's fault that they sound too complex, and your assertion that they do this to elevate themselves is flat out wrong. What is actually happening is that a particular forum member's style of delivery and level of content may not suit the style and understanding of a particular questioner. We can't be all things to all people... we suit some more than others. Also, there is the situation of people asking questions way above their pay grade that demand technical answers, otherwise, they would be inaccurate.

 

 

It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience. - A. Einstein

 

Make things simple, but no simpler.

Edited April 29, 2016 by StringJunky

[swansont]

It's my experience here that it isn't that forum member's fault that they sound too complex, and your assertion that they do this to elevate themselves is flat out wrong. What is actually happening is that a particular forum member's style of delivery and level of content may not suit the style and understanding of a particular questioner. We can't be all things to all people... we suit some more than others. Also, there is the situation of people asking questions way above their pay grade that demand technical answers, otherwise, they would be inaccurate.

 

 

Make things simple, but no simpler.

 

 

Quite. Simple answers are often wrong in some regard. If you've glossed over some detail but that detail is important, then there's going to be a problem with the discussion. We have a number of physics topics that we have to continually straighten out because the poster has gotten a too-simple pop-sci answer somewhere, and that's led them to incorrect conclusions. ("nothing travels faster than c", thinking the big bang was an explosion of matter and much of entanglement and teleportation are some examples that immediately pop into mind)

[studiot]

 

swansont

pop-sci answer somewhere, and that's led them to incorrect conclusions. ("nothing travels faster than c", thinking the big bang was an explosion of matter and much of entanglement and teleportation are some examples that immediately pop into mind)

 

 

That's why it's called pop-sci.

 

[DanTrentfield]

Who gets to decide what is necessary?

The level of complexity of the explanation required decides it. There is no official judge for it, I simply thought it would be a good idea to bring everyone back to as simple explanations as possible without omitting any crucial facts to the theory or question.

It's my experience here that it isn't that forum member's fault that they sound too complex, and your assertion that they do this to elevate themselves is flat out wrong. What is actually happening is that a particular forum member's style of delivery and level of content may not suit the style and understanding of a particular questioner. We can't be all things to all people... we suit some more than others. Also, there is the situation of people asking questions way above their pay grade that demand technical answers, otherwise, they would be inaccurate.

 

 

Make things simple, but no simpler.

You've highlighted what I've been trying to convey, Make things as simple as possible without omitting anything crucial to the discussion, and express all facts.

[Klaynos]

In physics, often the "simplest" answer is the mathematical answer. Yet you explicitly object to those replies. Insisting on physics discussions using only English is similar to only dealing with your mechanics for your car through the medium of dance.

[StringJunky]

You've highlighted what I've been trying to convey, Make things as simple as possible without omitting anything crucial to the discussion, and express all facts.

Let's put it this way, and it concords with swansonT and John Cuthber: Let's say my relative formal experience in physics is a 1, yours is a 3, and swansonT is a 6. My knowledge of the physical world is going to be classical/Newtonian mechanics, at best; you will have some experience and awareness of relativistic and quantum effects; with swansonT, it's his day job to know these things... which it is.. OK? Who is best qualified to decide what the simplest explanation is without obscuring the real, current, picture of the state of knowledge about something in this field?

 

I don't know what he knows, you don't know what he knows because our knowledge is much more basic than his, but yours is better than mine. Neither of us can judge whether he's being too complex or not, I can't judge you for the same reason. All we can say is "I don't understand". More often than not, the questioner needs to upgrade their own learning to be able to understand the answer. If you ask him a question, he will answer to the best of his ability. Whether you understand his answer, or not is not his fault or problem. I think it is beholden upon relative neophytes, in any given subject, to make sure they are at the right level of understanding before they ask such questions i.e. a manageable step up in knowledge, not a question that requires one to be already at the top of the ladder to understand.

 

Quite a few times, over the years, I've asked a question, expecting a drink from a dripping tap only to find my head in a fire hydrant at full bore.

Edited May 4, 2016 by StringJunky

[studiot]

 

I don't know what he knows, you don't know what he knows because our knowledge is much more basic than his, but yours is better than mine. Neither of us can judge whether he's being too complex or not, I can't judge you for the same reason. All we can say is "I don't understand". More often than not, the questioner needs to upgrade their own learning to be able to understand the answer. If you ask him a question, he will answer to the best of his ability. Whether you understand his answer, or not is not his fault or problem. I think it is beholden upon relative neophytes, in any given subject, to make sure they are at the right level of understanding before they ask such questions i.e. a manageable step up in knowledge, not a question that requires one to be already at the top of the ladder to understand.

 

Interesting paragraph.

 

Here is a supposed conversation that took place in 1919 at the conference where Eddington presented the first experimental confirmation of (general) relativity.

 

Physicist, Professor Silberstein, "Professor Eddington you must be one of the three persons in the world who understand general relativity"

 

Eddington "Smiles"

 

Siberstein "Don't be modest, Eddington"

 

Eddington "On the contrary I'm trying to think who the third person might be"

 

[StringJunky]

 

Interesting paragraph.

 

Here is a supposed conversation that took place in 1919 at the conference where Eddington presented the first experimental confirmation of (general) relativity.

 

Physicist, Professor Silberstein, "Professor Eddington you must be one of the three persons in the world who understand general relativity"

 

Eddington "Smiles"

 

Siberstein "Don't be modest, Eddington"

 

Eddington "On the contrary I'm trying to think who the third person might be"

 

Exactly.

[John Cuthber]

The level of complexity of the explanation required decides it.

Who gets to decide "The level of complexity of the explanation required"?

 

The problem is that your opinion might not tally with someone else's.

But does that make them wrong, or you?

[ajb]

Who gets to decide "The level of complexity of the explanation required"?

I would say that that is to some extent set by who is asking the question. Internet forums are difficult media to set the level of the answer. For the most part we have no idea what the questione knows, though the nature of the question could be a indicator.

[swansont]

Let's put it this way, and it concords with swansonT and John Cuthber: Let's say my relative formal experience in physics is a 1, yours is a 3, and swansonT is a 6. My knowledge of the physical world is going to be classical/Newtonian mechanics, at best; you will have some experience and awareness of relativistic and quantum effects; with swansonT, it's his day job to know these things... which it is.. OK? Who is best qualified to decide what the simplest explanation is without obscuring the real, current, picture of the state of knowledge about something in this field?

 

I don't know what he knows, you don't know what he knows because our knowledge is much more basic than his, but yours is better than mine. Neither of us can judge whether he's being too complex or not, I can't judge you for the same reason. All we can say is "I don't understand". More often than not, the questioner needs to upgrade their own learning to be able to understand the answer. If you ask him a question, he will answer to the best of his ability. Whether you understand his answer, or not is not his fault or problem. I think it is beholden upon relative neophytes, in any given subject, to make sure they are at the right level of understanding before they ask such questions i.e. a manageable step up in knowledge, not a question that requires one to be already at the top of the ladder to understand.

 

Quite a few times, over the years, I've asked a question, expecting a drink from a dripping tap only to find my head in a fire hydrant at full bore.

There's a video I've seen where Feynman is asked about magnetism (part of a longer interview where he's answering questions.) His response is basically that he can't explain it in a way that person is going to understand, because the interviewer doesn't know enough of the basics to understand the answer. Feynman would have to teach a year of introductory E&M to get there, and you can't do that in 5 minutes.

 

I don't find anything unreasonable in that. One of the great frustrations in science communication is trying to explain something concisely when it's clear that the target doesn't understand the basic science that's involved. It's worse here when people how up, demanding simple answers to questions involving advanced physics, when it's clear that they have never taken a physics class — they don't understand the implications of introductory concepts like conservation of momentum, or what work and energy represent, etc.

 

You can't demand that answers not be complex anyway, because some things are complex, but that applies double if you don't have a grasp of the basics.

[Strange]

There is a subset who believe the fact it is complex and hard to understand means that it must be wrong. They expect (demand) the universe is simple enough to be understood by an average person.

[StringJunky]

There's a video I've seen where Feynman is asked about magnetism (part of a longer interview where he's answering questions.) His response is basically that he can't explain it in a way that person is going to understand, because the interviewer doesn't know enough of the basics to understand the answer. Feynman would have to teach a year of introductory E&M to get there, and you can't do that in 5 minutes.

Yes, in the bits and books I've read of his, he brings it up fairly regularly pointing to the difficulty in simplifying certain ideas without losing the essence of them, especially when introducing a new idea.