this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
1000 points (98.7% liked)

Science Memes

11148 readers
3039 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I don't read much (/any) academic writing, but does it really misuse words the way the link portrays?

Eg

  • academic writing isn't prose, like that's almost the definition of prose.
  • intra-specialized doesn't mean anything (the intra prefix didn't work on adjectives)
  • "obfuscating ... accessibility" means making it difficult to see that it is accessible, where the author probably actually wants to say "reducing the ability of outsiders to access the meaning"

I get that it is satire, but imo it would be better satire if he put in the work to actually make it mean something. Unless the point is that academic writers misuse thesauruses this badly.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I think the point is that academic writers use large terms, despite using them wrong, when diminutive ones would suffice.

They use big words for the sake of using big words. Whether they make any sense whatsoever, is entirely beside the point.

The text, as I understand it is essentially saying the same thing, using big words to obfuscate that they're actually saying something rather boring and simple, which also has the point of obfuscating the meaning of the text to anyone who isn't an academic; aka someone who isn't used to such nonsensical word play.

There's a good reason I've avoided any work in academic fields. They incorrectly use terms, which just muddies the water on what the hell they're actually saying. Not only because the terms are big/less known, but because they're often used wrong.

IMO, academics are morons who like to sound smart.

... Do you concur?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I don't think that there's a higher concentration of morons in academia than in larger society. However, their professional experience is pretty different from the so called 'real world' so they definitely can have some unfathomable blind spots.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

I agree with this, especially that the number of morons isn't higher than society at large, and therein lies the problem with society.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Not unlike LLMs. How curious.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Socioeconomic encryption. Fun fact: the Chinese written language was focused on this concept — and Korean focused on doing the opposite, in fact.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Veni, Vidi, Thesaurisi?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

All English words that don't have a specific pluralization (eg mouse, mice) can be pluralized with either an s or an es. It's also a Latin and Greek root, so it can be pluralized as you did, in the Latin way, or the Greek way (Thesauroi), or alternatively with the s/es ending, all of which are correct!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Unlike "octopi". 🙇🏽‍♂️

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nope! Octopuses, octopuses, and octopi are all correct afaik

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Wrong, sorry. Októpus is a Greek word that translates to “eight foot,” and pluralizing it via Latin has no etymological basis. "Acceptable/widely used" is in no way synonymous to "correct", let's not forget.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not who you're responding to but I must vehemently disagree. In English, which doesn't have a centralized governing body, the correct way of pronouncing/spelling something depends on your intention and expected audience. If your intended audience is English speakers then the correct spelling is probably octopi or octopuses, whichever you believe will cause the least confusion/distraction (surely it varies regionally).

However, usually my intention is to portray my unfathomably superior knowledge and intellect, so the correct spelling/pronunciation in this case is: octopodes (which I think he had listed but ironically got 'corrected' to 'octopuses').

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Modulating one's speech according to audience is not dialectic morphology, much less general etymology — it's a matter of scope.

You can use whatever you want, no argument there. Whether or not it comes off sounding semi-literate is more up to your audience and your own self-awareness than any "centralized governing body", citizen. 🙇🏽‍♂️🫣

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

"As with many modern scientific creature-names, it was coined in Modern Latin from Greek elements, so it might be allowed to partake of Latin grammar in forming the plural"

Literally from the link you provided. It was coined initially in the language of modern latin, from Greek roots, certainly, but the word objectively and literally comes from modern latin.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

I think the meaning of the actual words that he chose is less important than the fact that it sounds absurdly convoluted.

Also I don't think his point is true. If you read academic papers come up most of them are pretty easy to understand.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's saying that it uses terminology that is well-understood, specific and explicit within the field, but depends on a common understanding of the language used. So people outside the field are unable to understand it, even though they would be able to understand the actual concepts.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

I agree that that's probably what it's trying to say, but I don't think it actually says that.