Re: comm. (was Re: FW: Re:Emergence Seminar--BritishEmergence)

Posted by Marcus G. Daniels on Sep 16, 2009; 1:49pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-comm-was-Re-FW-Re-Emergence-Seminar-BritishEmergence-tp3654051p3656302.html

Miles Parker wrote:
> What is different about scientific discourse? Is it intent? Context?
>
Scientific writing aims to facilitate the reader in understanding how to
reproduce a result.  It must be subject neutral.
Why should pre-publication discourse be different?  For example, peer
review is not supposed to be different.  I could see why some
interdisciplinary collaborative discourse would be different, as it
would involve education (e.g. each colleague could model the other to
have an idea of what they probably understand and what they probably
don't).   But the inputs and outputs to those models would come down to
utterances in a domain or set of domains of science, and so there again
the direct approach (correct what was said), ought to be fine.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org