61–70 of 78 posts
In the abstract the authors write "Among the existing studies, there is also divergent understandings." It'd be interesting to see the methodology of this paper (doesn't seem to have access without pay) and how it differs from previous studies.
> the frequency of hedging words such as “might" and "probably" has fallen by about 40% over the past 2 decades... Sounds all too right. That certainly seems to be true in the low-end brands of Nature (Nature Food, Nature Water, Nature Joule...) which read like press releases with some random math thrown in. It's really bad in results associated with "green", "nanotechnology", or batteries.
I think this is a general cultural phenomenon not specific to the sciences- people are told they need to be aggressively confident to be taken seriously. Even as a kid parents and teachers will suggest to kids to edit words expressing uncertainty out of their writing. They are coached to talk like that when public speaking, at job interviews, and even dating. As a scientist- I also think papers and grant applications…
I think it’s a newer culture pushed by the media and universities to accept scientific claims without questioning them. They usually cite whatever they say without evidence. What a scientific consensus or even unnamed scientist say can be used to dismiss others’ points. It’s almost like they’re the clergy of today. Some are calling this “scientism.” We need to go back to treating any claims with healthy skepticism, r…
Obligatory "havent read the journal article." But I can say that I remove words like that from my manuscripts to reduce the word count. Older articles I read seem to ramble more and have less information density? So that's another possible explanation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s a newer culture pushed by the media and universities to accept scientific claims without questioning them. They usually cite whatever they say without evidence. What a scientific consensus or even unnamed scientist say can be used to dismiss others’ points. It’s almost like they’re the clergy of today. Some are calling this “scientism.” We need to go back to treating any claims with healthy skepticism, r…
People misinterpret science as being a collection of facts discovered by authority figures rather than a process of questioning the validity of any claims made. It's almost as if the concept of science has turned into the religion of the atheist. Unquestionable, and dictated by more holy figures than them, in the form of scientists, and in some cases politicians, rather than clergy.
I think that could be changed by changing how science is taught: give people the tools to experiment and reason, and figure out an answer on their own. I'd like to see more kids volunteering to work with real scientists, and see what the work is like firsthand.
These science-as-religion people often attack me online, and in real life when I share my own ideas... and then back down and flip almost to some creepy worship when they figure out I'm an academic PI. No reasoning or evidence can convince them of anything, but credentials instantly do.
I'd like to explain to them- as an officially ordained "science priest" with the degree and job title- that believing things based on authority rather than understanding yourself is the most heinous blasphemy possible. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree. At least in my western country, it has become almost expected that everyone is fully confident all the time. I’m someone who likes to deliberate on thoughts, take my time, listen to opinions and assess them, then provide my opinion (which may also change over time with more information or changing circumstances). I am humble, a listener, and don’t believe I know everything. I feel a little out of place in curr…
One of my professor at uni (he managed to talk to Bill gates to get Microsoft to fund his startup, which is now an established research center) told us that if we don't know something, being honest and saying you don't know it is usually a good sign. Be it at an oral exam, be it when you're answering question at a startup pitch (...) I really appreciated when a professor, when asked with a question he doesn't know, s…
I think this is a general cultural phenomenon not specific to the sciences- people are told they need to be aggressively confident to be taken seriously. Even as a kid parents and teachers will suggest to kids to edit words expressing uncertainty out of their writing. They are coached to talk like that when public speaking, at job interviews, and even dating. As a scientist- I also think papers and grant applications…
> Even as a kid parents and teachers will suggest to kids to edit words expressing uncertainty out of their writing. They are coached to talk like that when public speaking, at job interviews, and even dating. That's the first time I'm hearing this and it's certainly not something I've ever observed. In this broad generally, I cannot believe that this statement is true.
It is my understanding that this is a very USA-centric trend in writing, probably being exported along with the rest of the complex basket of American cultural quirks that come along with US-led internationalization (hegemony if you like) since WWII.
I think this is a general cultural phenomenon not specific to the sciences- people are told they need to be aggressively confident to be taken seriously. Even as a kid parents and teachers will suggest to kids to edit words expressing uncertainty out of their writing. They are coached to talk like that when public speaking, at job interviews, and even dating. As a scientist- I also think papers and grant applications…
Good. Fantastic. Wunderbar. Magnifique. "Maybe", "might", and "possibly" are all words that should be banned from scientific papers in all sections except "Future Work", and even there the reviewers should be on their guard for authors trying to sneak them in.
I read way too many papers back when I was a researcher where the authors did not have the proper evidence for claims they made, and they fell back on bullshit weasel words like this. It does NOT show that you're humble or retrospective. It shows that you didn't do your job but you really want your pet theory (or more likely, theme of your next grant's research) to be true, so you're going to act like it is anyway but with a safety hatch if you get called out on it.
The real elephant in the room, that the scientific community still refuses to address except when they think they can work it into a grant, is the reproducibility crisis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus's message of humility was clear. The rest is your speculation, 2000 years later, about what worked.
If it's so clear and persuasive then why is it more lacking today than 2000 years ago?
Jesus is certainly far, far more influential than 2000 years ago. Christianity was an obscure religion and probably nobody had heard of Jesus outside the immediate region.