When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?

[Revoltingest]

When does science go "gibberish?"

That one may be more a characteristic of individual academics rather than an overall tendency. Certain mental conditions that may drive someone towards an academic route, such as Asperger's Syndrome, have signs and indications that includes verbosity, unusual sentence structures, and an exuberant vocabulary.
The publishers being fooled just means the publishers have bad editors who aren't doing their jobs.

(Exponential line length growth to come.)
I don't see aspies as particularly prone to this.
I'm thinking of arcane verbosity used to embiggen oneself.
Aspies are driven towards accurate expression, & arcane words are often best.
No, I'm thinking of posers & self aggrandizing elitists compelled to use a big word when a diminutive one would do.

 

[Nietzsche]

Science "gibberish" is as much 'gibberish' as Mandarin Chinese sounds to an English speaker. Just because you can't understand what they're saying doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. It means you're ignorant(original meaning, as in simply not aware).

 

[LuisDantas]

Science proper needs to be verifiable, so it is by definition a self-limiting problem.

However, there are those who call "science" things that are not. Deepak Chopra for one.

Other factors to consider are the deficiency of science education and politically motivated misinformation.

 

[metis]

Science proper needs to be verifiable, so it is by definition a self-limiting problem.

However, there are those who call "science" things that are not. Deepak Chopra for one.

Other factors to consider are the deficiency of science education and politically motivated misinformation.

And this is one reason why the peer-review process is so important in science as it allows for an open-forum where scientists can take each other's conclusions,check on them, and publish their own analysis. With all the pseudo-science that's out there, much of it being politically motivated as you mention above, it's important that this process continue to be the mainstay of science.

 

[columbus]

Open for discussion for the Theists and the Atheists alike.
Regards

Scientists often find out things I don't understand, or are counterintuitive. The reason I still assume that they are being honest and as accurate as possible is their track record.
I don't understand why things increase in mass with velocity. But physicists who do create nuclear devices. I don't understand the entirety of evolution, but pathogens become resistant to antibiotics. I don't understand why AC current is more efficient than DC, but all the good electrical systems use it.

As opposed to religionists who make claims and then can't back the claims up with anything. They say, "You'll find out after you die!"

Then there is the system for rooting out errors in our understanding. Scientists have a method that involves tight reasoning and requires claims be subjected to open scrutiny. Religionists just schism or form a new religion entirely. Anybody can claim to have a dream or a revelation and claim to speak for God. And they have as much credibility as any other human claiming that.

As a result of all this I am willing to assume that a scientific claim, that has been vetted by other scientists, is far far far more believable than any implausible claim from a religionist.
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see aspies as particularly prone to this.

Some of the indications of Asperger's is verbosity, unusual sentence structure, and a very large vocabulary.

As for the OP, what exactly is science gibberish? Is it the articles pulled because no one bothered to fact check them, or is it things like chemical-compound names such as magnesium sulfate heptahydrate, deoxyribonucleic acid, or dihydrogen monoxide?

 

[Revoltingest]

Some of the indications of Asperger's is verbosity, unusual sentence structure, and a very large vocabulary.

As for the OP, what exactly is science gibberish? Is it the articles pulled because bothered to fact check them, or is it things like chemical-compound names such as magnesium sulfate heptahydrate, deoxyribonucleic acid, or dihydrogen monoxide?

There are 2 kinds of people in the world.....
1) Those who use arcane words for accuracy instead of pretense (put'n on airs).
2) Those who use arcane words to put on airs.
3) Those who can't count.

 

[leibowde84]

Open for discussion for the Theists and the Atheists alike.
Regards

That the speaker must do their part to research the meaning of the scientific terms used. It should come as no surprise that it won't be easily or, much less, automatically understood.

 

[Riverwolf]

(Exponential line length growth to come.)
I don't see aspies as particularly prone to this.
I'm thinking of arcane verbosity used to embiggen oneself.
Aspies are driven towards accurate expression, & arcane words are often best.
No, I'm thinking of posers & self aggrandizing elitists compelled to use a big word when a diminutive one would do.

As an aspie, I used to be just like that as well: a self-aggrandizing elitist using "big" (read, Romance) words unnecessarily, with the excuse that it's "proper".

I'm still, as you describe it, driven to "accurate expression", since communication doesn't come instinctively for me, but these days that involves more playing around with words people are well-familiar with rather than using words nobody uses anymore.

Science "gibberish" is as much 'gibberish' as Mandarin Chinese sounds to an English speaker. Just because you can't understand what they're saying doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. It means you're ignorant(original meaning, as in simply not aware).

Pretty much that. Scientific vernacular is often hard to understand to those not intimately familiar with it, but then again, so is Shakespeare.

When I was learning computer programming, one of the most difficult things to overcome for me was the vernacular. A lot of the terminology seemed rather arbitrary and meaningless at the time, and getting past that was a real struggle for me. Part of that was internal rebellion at the terminology, and a drive to come up with terms of my own. I can easily see another reaction to such frustration being a declaration that such vernacular is "gibberish".

 

[McBell]

Open for discussion for the Theists and the Atheists alike.
Regards

Define "gibberish".
Please provide an example.

This is an important step to determine if you mean real actual gibberish or if you are calling what you do not understand gibberish.

 

[Revoltingest]

As an aspie, I used to be just like that as well: a self-aggrandizing elitist using "big" (read, Romance) words unnecessarily, with the excuse that it's "proper".
I'm still, as you describe it, driven to "accurate expression", since communication doesn't come instinctively for me, but these days that involves more playing around with words people are well-familiar with rather than using words nobody uses anymore.

So you're a recovering snooty elitist, eh.
Tis good to improve with age.

 

[Augustus]

I find it interesting that most people have claimed that when 'science talks gibberish' it is because the reader doesn't understand. The 'science' is right, it's just the reader that is wrong.

Of course this is an issue, but in many areas termed 'science' much if not most of material published in academic journals is wrong.

When scientists talk gibberish it is frequently due to things such as poor methodology, poor mathematics (especially statistics and probability), deliberate misrepresentation for professional or financial advancement and wishful thinking.

In terms of language though, scientists aren't half as bad as other academics who tend to use the most complex way possible to explain a simple concept just to affect an image of sophistication. Can't remember who it was but someone said something along the lines of 'the value of an academic discipline is inversely proportional to how long a layman can talk about it before the expert realises the layman doesn't know what they are talking about'.

 

[McBell]

I find it interesting that most people have claimed that when 'science talks gibberish' it is because the reader doesn't understand. The 'science' is right, it's just the reader that is wrong.

Of course this is an issue, but in many areas termed 'science' much if not most of material published in academic journals is wrong.

When scientists talk gibberish it is frequently due to things such as poor methodology, poor mathematics (especially statistics and probability), deliberate misrepresentation for professional or financial advancement and wishful thinking.

In terms of language though, scientists aren't half as bad as other academics who tend to use the most complex way possible to explain a simple concept just to affect an image of sophistication. Can't remember who it was but someone said something along the lines of 'the value of an academic discipline is inversely proportional to how long a layman can talk about it before the expert realises the layman doesn't know what they are talking about'.

"The value of an academic discipline is inversely proportional to how long a layman can talk about it before the expert realizes the layman doesn't know what they are talking about."
~Bertrand Russell​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As an aspie, I used to be just like that as well: a self-aggrandizing elitist using "big" (read, Romance) words unnecessarily, with the excuse that it's "proper".

I'm still, as you describe it, driven to "accurate expression", since communication doesn't come instinctively for me, but these days that involves more playing around with words people are well-familiar with rather than using words nobody uses anymore.

I'm prone to using archaic words and expressions, I've been accused of making words up, a few teachers have had to ask me what certain words mean, and it's just something I do without any mental effort, save for those plebeians who annoy me and I find myself going to extra lengths to make those who have hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia run for the hills.
Actually, since school, I've been making an effort to try and take it down a few notches.

 

[gnostic]

That's a strange thing to say, paarsurrey.

Just because you don't understand science, doesn't mean others can't.

If you want to understand anything, not just science, you get an education in that particular field that you want to know.

What you perceive as "gibberish" is your own lack of education, and that can only be rectify by, through education.

Perhaps if you tell us, then we can help you find the sources you would need to understand. Or perhaps even one of us can clarify what you find so puzzling to you.

If you don't understand something, all you need to do is to recognise that there are some things in this world, and ask for help.

The worse thing you can do, is say something like science gibberish AND NOT SEEKING TO LEARN WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW.

Actually that's the second worse thing you could do. The worse thing you could do is pretend you know something that you ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW, and then go on speaking gibberish. I think that's trait or tactics that often used creationists - whether they be Christians or Muslims. They quote some vague passages in their respective scriptures, claiming it is "science", like the so-called "scientific miracle" or "scientific sign" that Muslims like to use.

Tell me, in what area in science that you think is "gibberish"?

 

[McBell]

I am going to await for an example of what the OP considers "gibberish" before I level the accusation of ignorant upon him.

 

[gnostic]

I am going to await for an example of what the OP considers "gibberish" before I level the accusation of ignorant upon him.

Considering that some of his most recent threads that he has started up, I am guessing that it has to do about the Big Bang cosmology.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Considering that some of his most recent threads that he has started up, I am guessing that it has to do about the Big Bang cosmology.

But he hasn't said exactly what he thinks science gibberish is? It could be a lack of understanding of scientific terms, it could be something to do with the science articles being pulled for containing gibberish, or it could be something else.

 

[gnostic]

But he hasn't said exactly what he thinks science gibberish is? It could be a lack of understanding of scientific terms, it could be something to do with the science articles being pulled for containing gibberish, or it could be something else.

True. I am just guessing. But several topics he had started recently, does lean towards the Big Bang. So until he clarify what he mean by science, or which science, we are left with waiting, wiggling our thumbs.

 

[LuisDantas]

I find it interesting that most people have claimed that when 'science talks gibberish' it is because the reader doesn't understand. The 'science' is right, it's just the reader that is wrong.

Of course this is an issue, but in many areas termed 'science' much if not most of material published in academic journals is wrong.

When scientists talk gibberish it is frequently due to things such as poor methodology, poor mathematics (especially statistics and probability), deliberate misrepresentation for professional or financial advancement and wishful thinking.

In terms of language though, scientists aren't half as bad as other academics who tend to use the most complex way possible to explain a simple concept just to affect an image of sophistication. Can't remember who it was but someone said something along the lines of 'the value of an academic discipline is inversely proportional to how long a layman can talk about it before the expert realises the layman doesn't know what they are talking about'.

I have a hunch that you are not talking about "gibberish" in quite the same meaning used in the OP.