Interesting. That article validates a feeling I've had for a long while. Communication both amongst scientists and between scientists and the rest of the population is an important issue that needs to be addressed. As scientists our primary purpose is to explain to others what we learn about our surroundings. Learning without passing the information on doesn't (in my opinion) accomplish much and does not add to the repository of knowledge we all draw upon to move to the next step in learning.
Within the sciences there seems to be a trend, one that begins in school and is perpetuated in the professional world, of demonstrating one's intelligence by being almost incomprehensibly complex. This does few people any good as it can drive even those very interested in what your topic is away from the subject. Part of this may be due to the genuine complexity of the subjects we look at and our desire to capture as much of that intricacy as we can. This is an admirable goal, but we must keep in mind that most other people have not looked into our particular subject deeply enough to appreciate the fulness of what we see and that they may not have the time to do so. Also, we tend to forget that our most important audience is not other scientists, but the population at large. Many non-scientists are extremely curious about the knowledge scientists have to offer, but, even if those people can access the information (raising the issue of the criminal expense of scientific papers and journals), what we find is usually not presented in a way that anyone other than a fellow specialist can understand it. Einstein said, “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough”. Maybe we as a profession should meditate upon this. Our goal, after all, is to explain to others. Neahga Leonard On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:47 AM, David Shiffman <[email protected]>wrote: > Hello, all! > > I wanted to let you know about a new blog post I've written that may be of > interest. > > A recent PNAS paper showed that papers including a high density of complex > equations are less likely to be cited than papers with fewer equations. > Their conclusion was that many scientists appear to be unfamiliar with > complex mathematics. This paper prompted 4 replies in the latest issue of > PNAS. > > I've summarized all the sides in a blog post, and invited the authors of > each of the papers and replies to participate in a discussion with my > blog's readers. Given that many of you use complex mathematics in your > research, I thought that this might interest you. > > Please feel free to join the discussion on the blog either by sharing your > opinion or by responding to my readers' questions. > > The post can be found here: > > http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=13943 > > Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. > > Sincerely, > > -- > > *David Shiffman* > *Ph.D. Student, Research Assistant,* > Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy <http://www.cesp.miami.edu/> > R.J. Dunlap Marine Conservation Program <http://rjd.miami.edu/> > > [image: RJD] > > *e: *[email protected] | *p: *412.915.2309 > *a: *4600 Rickenbacker Cswy, Miami, Florida, 33149 > *t: *@WhySharksMatter <http://twitter.com/#!/WhySharksMatter> | *b: > *Southern > Fried Science Blog <http://www.southernfriedscience.com/> > -- Neahga Leonard *There is not just a whole world to explore, there is a whole universe to explore, perhaps more than one.* http://writingfornature.wordpress.com/
