SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A genomics professor has devised a tongue-in-cheek measure of scientific work vs. scientific recognition.
Neil Hall, a genomics professor with the University of Liverpool, has kicked up a bit of an Internet storm. He's written a paper and has had it published in the journal Genome Biology, suggesting (with tongue firmly in cheek) that some scientists are getting more attention than they deserve, due to their heightened social standing. He's even come up with a way to measure it, his so-called "Kardashian-index" or more simply, K-index-it's derived by noting how many people are following the scientist on Twitter and then dividing that number by followers the scientist probably should have due to papers written and associated citations for it, i.e. proof of actual work done.
The index is named after Kim Kardashian (and her family) of course, who have become famous for being famous -- they don't actually do anything. And that's the point of Hall's paper-is the scientific community in danger of being overrun by scientists who make a lot of noise in the social media world, but do very little actual scientific work? Hall notes that there seems to be times when scientists are asked to give talks at conferences based more on their social standing than on work they have actually done. This begs the question, are scientists (regardless of field) just as susceptible to the cult of celebrity as everyone else and if so, is it harming science?
Full text: http://genomebiology.com/2014/15/7/424
(Score: 5, Informative) by Marand on Wednesday August 06 2014, @09:59PM
That isn't begging the question [wikipedia.org] and should be written as "this raises the question" instead. Support BTQ awareness [begthequestion.info] today!
I know, everyone uses it that way and we should just give up and let the unwashed masses redefine the phrase because it's already a lost battle. In conversations I don't say anything about it, but it annoys me to see crap like that in places where proper English should be important, like in TFA.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 06 2014, @10:26PM
The only the reason the phrase is rendered in English as "begging the question" is due to unfortunate translations:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290 [upenn.edu]
"Begging the question" does not describe the idea it denotes and so it should be abandoned and replaced with something logical, like "assuming the conclusion".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday August 06 2014, @10:45PM
Guess we should just go back to Latin for scientific work, that would solve the entire celebrity question!
On the other hand, question begging is not the begging for questions, as illiterate morons think that "begging the question" means, so the problem is not just unfortunate translation. It is more a falsely construed similarity. A parallel that may be informative is the British English expression, a "damp squid", as a way of saying that something does not live up to expectation, or fizzles. The original expression was that something was a "damp squib"-- see that? Different word! A squib is a small explosive charge, which if damp may sputter or fizzle instead of exploding. Squid, on the other hand, are almost always damp to begin with, so the expression is either redundant or meaningless. The use of "begs the question" for "raises the question" is the same kind of mistake, usually made by those who are educated enough to have heard the phrase, but not well enough to understand it. So it is, in fact, and literally, something of a damp squid. And not a famous Kardashian Scientist kind of damp squid.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Wednesday August 06 2014, @10:48PM
Nice link, hopefully somebody will mod you up for that.
Unlikely to happen, but I wouldn't mind if it did; I find the phrase itself to be a bit strange and would prefer to see it used as little as possible. As it is, I would be happy if people would restrict its use to only referring to the logical fallacy. That alone would remove the phrase from the vast majority of English use.
Won't happen, though, so I'll just continue to gnash my teeth when would-be journalists throw it into their writing to "add flavour" in a vain attempt to sound smarter.
(Score: 3, Funny) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Wednesday August 06 2014, @10:31PM
That's an interesting factoid about begging the question that you shared with us!
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 07 2014, @12:16AM
Would "this begets the question" be ok?
(Score: 3, Funny) by gman003 on Thursday August 07 2014, @12:46AM
Oh, get over it.
First off, linguistic prescriptivism is a pointless fight that you will never win. "X begs the question" is perfectly valid phrase meaning "X raises the question", because that's how people use it. I understood exactly what was meant, you understood exactly what was meant, everybody understood what was meant.
Second, there's little chance the "begs the question" phrase will be confused with the "begging the question" logical fallacy. It's used in quite different contexts, both syntactically and logically.
Third, the phrase as *you* use it is based on a mistranslation, as your own Wikipedia link informed me. Which begs the question, why is the mistranslation considered the "correct" usage, and the one based on the individual meanings of the words considered the "wrong" one? It would be far more logical for it to be the exact opposite.
I'll try to make this criticism constructive, and suggest an alternate phrasing. "Arguing for the antecedent" could be used as a replacement for "begging the question". If that seems too formal, you could use "restating the question" or "returning to the assumptions".
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday August 07 2014, @01:55AM
Because it is not slang, where "bad" can mean "good", or "cool" can mean "hot, and so forth. It is a pretension to vocabulary that the speaker does not grasp. So it does not mean what people think it means, even though they keep using it! (Yes, I know, it inconceivable!)
And the usual, non-classically derived name for the error in reasoning is "arguing in a circle". Circular reasoning is like saying that a word means whatever people think it means, so whatever people think a word means is what it means! Hey, that begets a question: what if people do not know what a word means, but they keep using it anyway?
(Score: 2) by Marand on Thursday August 07 2014, @02:26AM
Wow, you got really offended about my comment. I didn't expect anyone to be that vitriolic over it.
I already said it was a lost cause and that I don't worry about it in casual contexts. In fact, I said that in the comment you responded to, as well as stating that I only commented on it because it was a glaring mistake in a place where proper English is important: journalism*. In casual contexts, sure, redefine the language how you like, as long as all parties involved still understand what you mean; but when the context is more formal, the rules matter, even if you don't agree with them. There are grammar rules I consider idiotic and generally ignore in casual conversation, but I still follow them when I write something formally.
Also, for what it's worth, I rarely use the phrase at all because I don't generally need to refer to the logical fallacy and I believe there are much better ways to phrase the incorrect usage. Saying that something "raises the question" is usually the intended phrase, but it's not the only way to state the intended thought. So, why use "begs the question" when it's clunky and doesn't quite work? Any time someone says "begs the question" it sounds like they're begging this guy [wikipedia.org] for mercy, not asking a question.
---
* I suppose you could argue that the linked article doesn't qualify as journalism, but that's an entirely different argument, and one that would likely offend the people writing the articles. I doubt any sysadmins would appreciate being called a "computer janitor", for example, so I choose to assume the writers consider themselves journalists and hold them to similar standards.