Science isn't easy. It can be repetitive and tedious, but it's not easy. Writing about it is even harder.
We're skimming through a grocery list of the worst scientific disciplines to research and write about, as compiled by the writers of Ars Technica, a science-slanted popular news outlet.
Note that this list is more about what science writers don't like --reading-- about, not writing. And most of the problems here come from the discrepancy between how passionate the writers feel about their subject matter, and its impenetrability.
Space exploration
Paleontology
Batteries
Astronomy
Theoretical physics
Archeology
Quantum optics e.g. time crystals
The reasons for this lamented impenetrability are succinctly summarized by an actual scientist, in the comments section:
Professional scientist here. I'm currently writing a review paper, and I'm on a bit of a deadline crunch, so naturally I'm procrastinating here on Ars. And regarding your accusations of the dryness and joy robbing nature of the primary literature, I have just one thing to say to you...
You're kinda right. I mean, sure, there's a reason that it's written this way, but yeah, I get it. I'm plowing through many papers in my field and I understand the details well, and I definitely get excited at many passages that would put most people to sleep. But many simply put me to sleep.
I think the reason for this is three-fold: 1) precision of language is important; 2) making precise language varied and interesting is much more work than allowing it to remain dry, so many authors don't do it; 3) there are some details that specialists need to communicate to each other that aren't exciting no matter how hard you try. ¯\_(?)_/¯
-jjemerson
This is a great explanation, and supports the need for this very specific type of communicator in our society, the science writer. Alan Alda thought it was so important that he created an entire school to attend this need.
Notes:
Here are the subjects our reporters enjoy covering the least
Sep 2018, Ars Technica
Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University
No comments:
Post a Comment