Comments for Third Instar

Comment on Science-Making/Myth-Making by The Thesis « Third Instar

The Thesis « Third Instar — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:13:22 +0000

[...] idea springs from what I first began to consider in an earlier post. Narratology and other literary methods can be used to study science insofar as the objective of [...]

Comment on Bad Science Writing by silphid

silphid — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:55:18 +0000

Thank you, Levi. I don’t make myself clear in this post. I use this blog as a repository for my own thoughts without imagining that it could be of interest to anyone beside myself. Consequently, I don’t sufficiently elaborate my points.

The problem I had with the article’s final sentence is its ambiguity (a fault I am myself guilty of). The sentence would seem to suggest that this new research contradicts what “evolutionary science typically holds” but the author does not go on to tell us a) whether there is indeed a contradiction or debate, nor b) what the nature of that debate might be. The debate that might here be hinted at is the debate over plausibility of sympatric speciation. The article would benefit from the addition of something as simple as “This new evidence suggests that new species might in fact diverge in very close proximity to one another, a matter of heated debate in scientific communities.”

Now, the matter of the misinformed populace relates not to the idea of sympatric speciation, but to misconceptions of the general principals of evolution. The important misconception in play here is the one I point to with “sin” #1: the idea that evolution happens in discrete acts. There are many out there who eschew the theory because they think the theory dictates that new species just happen of a sudden – and since nobody has ever seen a chimp give birth to a human, evolutionary theory must be wrong. Granted, this is an extreme example, and people like this are usually willful in their misreadings of science. But science writers must be very diligent to accurately and precisely convey what the science entails. If science writers become sloppy with their usage of key terms (think of the definitions and uses of “fittest” in evolutionary writings, or the misuse of “theory” in “evolution is only a theory”) they must hold themselves at least partially accountable for a public that does not understand their work.

Comment on Bad Science Writing by Levi Novey

Levi Novey — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:38:38 +0000

While you make some valid points… this isn’t one:

“He doesn’t mention the debates over sympatric speciation.” and then: “And we know the problems associated with a misinformed popluace in control of science education and funding.”

Since you made yourself out to be so knowledgeable about science writing, why is it you think that a general audience who could learn something would give a shit about what sympatric speciation is? Have you ever done any science writing for a general audience? Or do you just read it?

Comment on Teched up Science by complex chaos « Third Instar

complex chaos « Third Instar — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:10:05 +0000

[...] If we can say the stock market is a complex system do we study the trouble of modeling it? [See this post about some problems with [...]

Comment on it goes by One Penny Profiles

One Penny Profiles — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:02:01 +0000

Hey–I hear ya. Pynchon is real tough. I finished Lot 49, no problem and thought it was great. Then moved onto Vineland, which was a lot of fun and interesting. Moved onto Rainbow but had to put it down. To try and motivate myself to get through it, I decided to buy another copy. Both of them still sit on my shelf. Then, in a total act of idiocy, I bought “Against the Day,” got a third of the way through and put it down. We’ll see how it goes.

Good luck. He’s tough.

From: onepennyprofiles.wordpress.com