undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjkuria13y ago0 comments

Why not? Do you need to say something confusing stated in esoteric medical terms?

0 comments

9 comments · 3 top-level

hyperpape13y ago· 3 in thread

Have you ever read an explanation of a compiler or concurrency using only the 1000 most common English words? It can be done (and I wish I could find the link), but there's a reason we don't talk like that, and neither should scientists.

Someone13y ago

Not a compiler, but more or less the same idea: Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity/In Words of Four Letters or Less: http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html

ISL13y ago

Sometimes scientists can, and we should.

Simple precision is good.

hyperpape13y ago

I think it's a great exercise--you will learn something if you try it. But you lose so much precision, and you wouldn't want to make that your normal way of speaking.

stefantalpalaru13y ago· 2 in thread

You do. Using a language that only other scientists like yourself understand is a way to prove that you belong to that community and that the unwashed masses need to fund your research further because it's obviously serious stuff that mere mortals can not begin to comprehend.

pekk13y ago

The people from whom you would get funding would understand the technical jargon of the field. Nobody is getting funded just for being so confusing that nobody can understand.

stefantalpalaru13y ago

Look above the grant committee that decides how the allocated funds will be distributed and you'll find clueless people[1][2].

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57577567/obama-brain-ini...

[2] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-54_en.htm

mhurron13y ago· 1 in thread

You do when you're looking for funding.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit"

If you present your paper "Healthy men who engage in a well rounded exercise regimen live longer, healthier lives" everyone is just going to go "well duh."

pekk13y ago

People in this literature will not have any problem understanding the jargon used here, and it's all meaningful, so this isn't at all a case of "baffle them with bullshit."

You almost certainly use some kinds of technical jargon at your job, there is no need for this weird anger about research scientists using jargon in the same way.

"Well duh" does not count as evidence for a claim, and the claim wasn't about a well-rounded exercise regimen but was rather more specific.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

9 comments · 3 top-level

hyperpape13y ago· 3 in thread

Someone13y ago

Not a compiler, but more or less the same idea: Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity/In Words of Four Letters or Less: http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html

ISL13y ago

Sometimes scientists can, and we should.

Simple precision is good.

hyperpape13y ago

I think it's a great exercise--you will learn something if you try it. But you lose so much precision, and you wouldn't want to make that your normal way of speaking.

stefantalpalaru13y ago· 2 in thread

pekk13y ago

The people from whom you would get funding would understand the technical jargon of the field. Nobody is getting funded just for being so confusing that nobody can understand.

stefantalpalaru13y ago

Look above the grant committee that decides how the allocated funds will be distributed and you'll find clueless people[1][2].

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57577567/obama-brain-ini...

[2] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-54_en.htm

mhurron13y ago· 1 in thread

You do when you're looking for funding.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit"

If you present your paper "Healthy men who engage in a well rounded exercise regimen live longer, healthier lives" everyone is just going to go "well duh."

pekk13y ago

People in this literature will not have any problem understanding the jargon used here, and it's all meaningful, so this isn't at all a case of "baffle them with bullshit."

You almost certainly use some kinds of technical jargon at your job, there is no need for this weird anger about research scientists using jargon in the same way.

"Well duh" does not count as evidence for a claim, and the claim wasn't about a well-rounded exercise regimen but was rather more specific.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse