tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post4163679425532050926..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Everything is amazing and nobody writes errataSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-9271069741353641172012-03-04T04:48:31.647-05:002012-03-04T04:48:31.647-05:00Yes, I wrote about that a few times. However, I do...Yes, I wrote about that a few times. However, I don't find it a very plausible explanation. Though this might affect us over the course of generations, people don't change the way they think within a few years (sometimes I wish they did) and by the mid 90s the internet was still slow and had limited use. This is why I was mentioning more specifically distribution changes (due to the Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-17886485374022579992012-03-03T20:34:26.060-05:002012-03-03T20:34:26.060-05:00As I read this entire post I was thinking of what ...As I read this entire post I was thinking of what Kaleberg suggests. Arxiv, but also the internet in general. I can't recall if you had a post here about it, but I've read in several places how access to the internet affects our thinking. People are less likely to remember something if they're aware that they will be able to look it up again at any time. Probably people are also less M*P*Lockwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11740436901803793444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-4225982391388667242012-03-03T16:30:15.630-05:002012-03-03T16:30:15.630-05:00at 4, "breeds carelessness"...at 4, "breeds carelessness"...rabhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075982588165305088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-74608106642035561282012-03-01T23:25:03.664-05:002012-03-01T23:25:03.664-05:00From http://arxiv.org/help/general - "Starte...From http://arxiv.org/help/general - "Started in August 1991, arXiv.org (formerly xxx.lanl.gov) is a highly-automated electronic archive and distribution server for research articles."<br /><br />That's probably unfair, but suggestive.Kaleberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05283840743310507878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-8626515256261043292012-02-29T20:58:40.772-05:002012-02-29T20:58:40.772-05:00Bee - I think point #5 and perhaps #4. I think #4...Bee - I think point #5 and perhaps #4. I think #4 has shifted a portion of the initial vetting of papers from third parties to the author who frankly has less interest in grammar, spelling and understandability to others. #5 I think is a large factor and could apply as well outside of the physics community. Just about every publication I read today (especially those now web only and formerly Anonymous Snowboarderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13705929076819672791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-8619686387024358172012-02-29T14:25:12.391-05:002012-02-29T14:25:12.391-05:00I think I should say about my previous comment tha...I think I should say about my previous comment that I wasn't saying the "rabble" , including me, would still be able to keep up with the existing pre 1990 papers. Speaking for myself, especially in the math department, I have sufficient deficits that I would never understand many of those papers either. But I think many of us would "get" what was being said with a little Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08213251864943443334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-70172195805845565972012-02-29T01:02:05.437-05:002012-02-29T01:02:05.437-05:00Hi Garrett, Rastus,
That's an interesting poi...Hi Garrett, Rastus,<br /><br />That's an interesting point. It had not occurred to me that it might be some people have 'lead by example.' It would be good to know though if this happened in other fields as well. If so, it seems unlikely these 'examples' were uncorrelated. Best,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77923563907988005882012-02-29T00:58:14.486-05:002012-02-29T00:58:14.486-05:00Hi Charles, Mason,
I think you're talking abo...Hi Charles, Mason,<br /><br />I think you're talking about two different types of readability. PRL is readable in the sense that the papers make an effort to explain the topic in terms that anybody with an education in the field can understand, rather than only addressing a very specialized audience. They're unreadable in that, once you've understood that, you might want to know the Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-74589330332320150922012-02-29T00:09:33.799-05:002012-02-29T00:09:33.799-05:00I know what you mean, but on the other hand, espec...I know what you mean, but on the other hand, especially in the 90's, Edward Witten was writing in a new style in which he really tried very hard to motivate what he was doing. [Take any of the papers he wrote in 1998 for example.] The people who followed that style, and they were not few, really did improve the intelligibility of papers in that field. So I can't agree that it has all beenRastus Odinga Odingahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615544434035028500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73995308675536733192012-02-28T20:35:29.961-05:002012-02-28T20:35:29.961-05:00I think there's been a cultural shift towards ...I think there's been a cultural shift towards obfuscation in some branches of the physics literature, with papers written to establish precedence and cleverness rather than clearly and comprehensively transmitting ideas. Since the community is relatively small, this shift might have been driven by the writing of a few popular individuals, who's style was then copied. Difficult thing to Garretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03136765358626033631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-31669372667123740962012-02-28T17:53:25.385-05:002012-02-28T17:53:25.385-05:00I think there might be a simple explanation for th...I think there might be a simple explanation for the abrupt change in style and readability of papers in the mid nineties. If I remember things correctly the mid to late nineties is when the Internet really caught fire. Suddenly information that was previously available to only a few in the field was available to all with a decent Internet connection.<br /><br />Along with this new access to Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08213251864943443334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-7954238546808426342012-02-28T13:33:46.130-05:002012-02-28T13:33:46.130-05:00Hmpf... from my perspective, PRL is one of the wo...Hmpf... from my perspective, PRL is one of the worst offenders when it comes to poorly-written articles! The 4-page restriction shortens the room for motivation/context, <i>intermediate steps</i> to show where one actually gets a result (!). One thing I like occurs in the journal <i>Chaos</i> (though many authors don't do it well): in addition to the abstract, there is an introductory boldMasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04415369043595429843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-22245843779227783082012-02-28T12:24:50.062-05:002012-02-28T12:24:50.062-05:00As an editor at Physics Today, I read a lot of pap...As an editor at <i>Physics Today</i>, I read a lot of papers in different fields from several journals. The quality of papers—as written expositions of research, rather than repositories of research results—is mixed. Some papers are paragons of clarity; others are hard to follow even, I suspect, for experts.<br /><br />In my experience, papers in APS's <i>Physical Review Letters</i> have Charles Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767541268557866725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15824259442071453742012-02-28T12:00:43.643-05:002012-02-28T12:00:43.643-05:00It's probably a combination of 2, 4 and 5. Pr...It's probably a combination of 2, 4 and 5. Probably 4 is the most important. When it takes much longer to write a paper (I recall someone talking about writing with a typewriter: one page of good copy per day was the goal), investing a few hours in careful proofreading doesn't make much difference, while this is a substantial fraction of writing (not doing the work, just writing it up) Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19909837782500844952012-02-28T11:45:16.683-05:002012-02-28T11:45:16.683-05:00/* . By the late 1990s, most papers are difficult .../* . By the late 1990s, most papers are difficult to understand.. */<br />In dense aether theory the evolution of human understanding roughly follows the geometry of surface wave spreading. Up to certain distance this spreading remains low-dimensional and essentially deterministic from surface wave perspective. After certain distance the dispersion takes place and the observational perspective Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-79536989886560577012012-02-28T10:58:59.034-05:002012-02-28T10:58:59.034-05:00Hi Steve,
Referees do frequently point out the pr...Hi Steve,<br /><br />Referees do frequently point out the presence of grammatical errors (the spelling is easier to deal with). I know this both from the side of the referee as well as from the side of the author. <br /><br />The problem is, nobody makes grammatical mistakes deliberately. Just telling somebody they're making mistakes doesn't help. Since I've left school, I have never Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-37520863839430274302012-02-28T10:43:44.803-05:002012-02-28T10:43:44.803-05:00Book editors do this, and so do magazine editors. ...Book editors do this, and so do magazine editors. Why shouldn't journal editors? After all, that's what editing *is*!<br /><br />But mainly my point is that there is no systematic demand for anything approaching good writing. If editors, and perhaps referees, do not even comment on basic grammatical errors, what hope is there for the correction of more subtle errors in clarity of Steve Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12008138653709554189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-10057545401775917102012-02-28T09:02:26.237-05:002012-02-28T09:02:26.237-05:00Hi Steve,
I don't think it should be the edit...Hi Steve,<br /><br />I don't think it should be the editor's work to correct the spelling and grammar. I know that some journals do at least a basic check with the copy-editing, because I sometimes get corrections with the proofs. However, this is clearly the exception rather than the rule. I suspect it's primarily lack of personnel. Best,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-16450449227627752902012-02-28T08:51:17.029-05:002012-02-28T08:51:17.029-05:00Editors don't edit anymore. You see plenty of...Editors don't edit anymore. You see plenty of published papers with grammatical errors in the title, or the first paragraph. The editors seem to be solely in charge of sending the damn things out for review, and have abdicated any role in making the material or the paper readable.Steve Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12008138653709554189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-63760716161085394472012-02-28T07:14:47.569-05:002012-02-28T07:14:47.569-05:00No. I don't want to publicly discuss the writi...No. I don't want to publicly discuss the writing style of some of my colleagues: it might come off as a criticism rather than just pointing out how the writing style has been changing. If you read <a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2012/01/planck-length-as-minimal-length.html" rel="nofollow">the paper that we discussed here</a> (from 1964), then search the arxiv for related topics and Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.com