Funny, but I don’t think it is the criticism of science it seems to be. Some items just point out that papers are formal, like
It is suggested that || It is believed that || It may be that . . . (I think)
Yeah, that’s what it means. What’s your point? (Well, it is useful at face value for people who don’t understand formal language, but it’s not trying to be.)
Others look like criticism but aren’t, like
. . . accidentally strained during mounting (. . . dropped on the floor)
Yes, it’s an amusing way of phrasing it, but there’s noting wrong with the fact or with the phrasing—the meaning gets across!
Some do show scientists obfuscating problems, like
Typical results are shown . . . (The best results are shown)
but none of them are new. It has long been known that scientists tend to ignore negative results and the like. The most reliable values are those of Ben Goldacre.
Also,
Correct within an order of magnitude (Wrong)
Is just plain correct within an order of magnitude. If I compute the mass of the sun from a weight of a rock in my hands and the shadows of two sticks, being correct within an order of magnitude is incredibly precise.
Small-s science the process that’s in fact implemented, not big-S Science the ideal. Though admittedly formality and obfuscation in journal papers isn’t a necessary part of current science (as opposed to publish-or-perish in general).
Funny, but I don’t think it is the criticism of science it seems to be. Some items just point out that papers are formal, like
Yeah, that’s what it means. What’s your point? (Well, it is useful at face value for people who don’t understand formal language, but it’s not trying to be.)
Others look like criticism but aren’t, like
Yes, it’s an amusing way of phrasing it, but there’s noting wrong with the fact or with the phrasing—the meaning gets across!
Some do show scientists obfuscating problems, like
but none of them are new. It has long been known that scientists tend to ignore negative results and the like. The most reliable values are those of Ben Goldacre.
Also,
Is just plain correct within an order of magnitude. If I compute the mass of the sun from a weight of a rock in my hands and the shadows of two sticks, being correct within an order of magnitude is incredibly precise.
I don’t think this was intended as a criticism of science… ;)
Small-s science the process that’s in fact implemented, not big-S Science the ideal. Though admittedly formality and obfuscation in journal papers isn’t a necessary part of current science (as opposed to publish-or-perish in general).
Or perhaps to make fun of scientists as, for instance, people who drop things on the floor.