Physicists avoid highly mathematical work despite being trained in advanced mathematics, new research suggests. The study, published in the New Journal of Physics, shows that physicists pay less attention to theories that are crammed with mathematical details. This suggests there are real and widespread barriers to communicating mathematical work, and that this is not because of poor training in mathematical skills, or because there is a social stigma about doing well in mathematics.
Dr Tim Fawcett and Dr Andrew Higginson, from the University of Exeter, found, using statistical analysis of the number of citations to 2000 articles in a leading physics journal, that articles are less likely to be referenced by other physicists if they have lots of mathematical equations on each page. [...] Dr Higginson said: "We have already showed that biologists are put off by equations but we were surprised by these findings, as physicists are generally skilled in mathematics.
"This is an important issue because it shows there could be a disconnection between mathematical theory and experimental work. This presents a potentially enormous barrier to all kinds of scientific progress."
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-physicists-mathematics.html
[Abstract]: Statistical Analysis of the Effect of Equations on Citations
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @06:37PM
No, because he merely listed an alternative possibility to demonstrate a point. He didn't write a serious scientific paper and then reach a potentially faulty conclusion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @06:52PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @08:15PM
He put forth a possible hypothesis, the basis of science. This isn't a scientifically rigorous blog and so everything is going to be OK. It's not going to be the end of the world.
Do I need to tuck you in too?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @08:50PM
So what you are saying is that he put forth a completely unresearched, unsupported, and therefore not relevant point to try to discredit a properly researched and written paper. We could invalidate ANY scientific paper ever written if we want to accept that slipshod logic.
You're telling me that's not how it works? Man, wait until the anti-vaxxers, 9/11 truthers and "Moon landing is fake" crowd hear about this!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 13 2016, @08:59PM
So what you are saying is that he put forth a completely unresearched, unsupported, and therefore not relevant point
What's up with all this anti-science crap? A point can be quite relevant even if it isn't a research paper. And let us note that "unsupported" can still be supported by reasoning and personal experience, even if you choose spuriously not to recognize those normal scientific processes.
Out of curiosity, do you believe reviewers of peer-reviewed papers conduct their own research in order to find typos, mistakes, and poor writing? I'll warn you right now that their criticism is usually unresearched and unsupported in your sense above, but it somehow manages to make a lot of scientific literature better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @01:10AM
He's afraid of a second opinion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @11:33PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:39PM
Well said meta-random-chatbot!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @11:37PM
And let us note that "unsupported" can still be supported by reasoning and personal experience
You want to rephrase that before I rip you apart, or after?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 15 2016, @04:08PM
You want to rephrase that before I rip you apart, or after?
No need for me to rephrase. Go for the ripping apart, you just might learn something. It was quite clear that whoever wrote the earlier post wasn't counting reason and personal experience. And I did use "scare quotes" to indicate I wasn't taking the claim of "unsupported" seriously. Communication, you know.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 15 2016, @04:36PM
Those reviewers, unlike the GP, have actually read the paper they are critiquing and they are, at least usually, educated in the field they are reviewing papers for. The idiot above is just spouting off with the believe that his objection should hold the same weight as the published article.
And what makes you think that earlier poster isn't educated in a relevant field? And it's one opinion versus another opinion. Just because one opinion happens to come from someone who wrote a paper isn't very relevant. You have to go beyond just asserting without reason that one opinion is better than another opinion.