Also this week: tell me again how many continents there are, “pick up the trash that lands in your path,” in defense of the (scientific) descendants of Erasmus, and more. More than the usual number of controversial links this week, but I have faith our commenters can handle it. As always, remember not to assume that I agree (or disagree) with anything I link to, unless I say so. A link just means “I read this, or at least skimmed it, and thought it was worth sharing.” Whether I find a link to be worth sharing depends on various factors, of which “do I agree with this?” is only one.
From Jeremy:
Words expressing uncertainty have become less frequent in Science papers since 1997. Possibly an indicator of increased salesmanship in scientific writing? Previously, I’ve argued that we’ll never get rid of salesmanship (broadly construed) in science, and wouldn’t want to even if we could. Although I also think naked salesmanship is counterproductive. Related: Ken Hughes’ old data on the use of emotional words in scientific papers.
As a curious bystander to the debate over whether Pluto is a planet, I am here for the debate over how many continents there are. Although I confess I’m still a bit unsure why anyone should care exactly which, or how many, bits of land are labeled “continents.” That was one thing I liked about Mike Brown’s book Why I Killed Pluto (And Why It Had It Coming): it did a nice of job of explaining why the debate over whether Pluto is a “planet” wasn’t a purely arbitrary semantic debate.
Why are some insect species named stupida? Stephen Heard doesn’t figure it out, but it’s entertaining and informative to read about him trying to figure it out.
“[P]ick up the pieces of trash that land in your path”
The scientific claims that tend to confirm your priors (especially your politics-related priors) are the ones you should be most skeptical of.
…which means I should be skeptical of this…
…and also skeptical of this (since it tends to confirm my prior that whole field of ‘misinformation research’ is misguided)
In defense of a self-perpetuating scientific elite.
I can’t decide if this claim that the Higgs boson wasn’t discovered is good trolling, or just trolling. Ok, trolling isn’t quite the right word; “pedantry” might be a bit better. It’s not the content that puts me off, so much as the tone and emphasis. It’s like an annoying version of Michael Strevens’ discussion of the Eddington experiment in The Knowledge Machine.
Coming up:
I rewarded myself for submitting the final version of my book by taking part of a day to bang out a couple of good posts for next week. One of which is a little spicy!
Let’s remember some ecology blogs (Nov. 4)
No one has ever torn down a scientific Tower of Babel by writing a review paper (so are you sure you should bother trying?) (Nov. 6)