Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday November 13 2016, @04:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-can-count-on-it dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @06:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @06:37PM (#426296)

    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

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @06:52PM (#426302)
    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.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @08:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @08:15PM (#426324)

      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

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @08:50PM (#426336)

      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

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 13 2016, @08:59PM (#426340) Journal

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @01:10AM (#426399)

        He's afraid of a second opinion.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @11:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @11:33PM (#426738)
        I believe you are just a chatbot writing random words, so you are therefor invalidated until you can provide research to back up the fact that you are not.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:39PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @09:39PM (#432139)

          Well said meta-random-chatbot!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @11:37PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2016, @11:37PM (#426742)
        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 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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 15 2016, @04:08PM (#427016) Journal

          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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 15 2016, @04:36PM (#427030) Journal

          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.