Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Interesting) by RamiK on Monday November 14 2016, @11:46AM

    by RamiK (1813) on Monday November 14 2016, @11:46AM (#426495)

    How is your anecdotal exceptionalism relevant to the general population? How's having a teacher singling you out as a prodigy and mentoring you applies to everyone's curriculum?

    This is the same mistake every novice athlete makes: They look at routines of exceptionally talented, advanced and often juiced athletes and mimic their routines. Ask any music prodigy that's successfully teaches music for a living and they'll confirm the same: While they didn't need nearly as much drilling and memorization, the vast majority of their students do.

    This is exactly what's wrong here. People look at high achieving youth that are being schooled privately by excellent teachers and think this should somehow apply to their children. Worse, those youth later reach positions in academia that deprive them of the experience of teaching normal people and influence the curricula based on their anecdotal evidence.

    And let be clear, we're talking about engineers, not theoretical physicist and mathematicians. People who actually do end up using calculus to design high-power infrastructure and machines on a daily basis NEED to know those identities. Programmers making algorithmic choices need to have all that "arithmetic at best" linear algebra and combinatorics as second nature so when they work on the code they be able to shift between representations on the fly like a musician switches keys reading sheet music.

    Keeping it closer to home, pick up Zed Shaw's books and look up his essays. He's discussing these very same issues as relevant to teaching programming. It's elementary stuff. But so is high-school.

    --
    compiling...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3