When perusing scientific literature, there are three kinds of authors. There are the journalists, the scientific historians, and the scientists themselves. Each is usually designated towards a specific audience: with the journalists tending to focus on the general public, the historians focusing on people more learned about the field, and scientists focusing on reaching out to other scientists. When people have little to know idea about the subject they are looking at to learn, a good starting point is to read the works of journalists and novelists. These authors may not be definitive experts in that field, but they they do have a good handle on what that topic is, and are able to explain it in a way that the novice is able to understand. This is very useful, due to the fact that the scientists know so much about their field, and have no idea what the reader doesn't knkow about the field, that it is really difficult for them to teach at a very basicc level. The journalists, however, have a fresh perspective on the topic, which is very helpful to the readers. The journalists remember what it was like not understanding the concepts that they are now somewhat familiar with, and are able to translate their learning experience into a distilled source for the reader to learn from. The historians have a firmer grasp on the topic than the journalists and are more suited towards intermediate readers. The historians not only have to know the subject itself, but have to know the history of the subject, and the history of the pioneers and researcers in that field as well. Since the history of human understanding conveniently goes from a basic to progressively more advanced as time goes by, historians in a particular field are well suited for being able to accomadate various levels of experitise even if their audience may not be as wide as the targeted readership aimed for by journalists. If I were to have an interest in chemistry and was curious on why these various equations are used, the historian can give me information on the person who discovered the principles, how they discovered it, and what uses it could be used for. This allows me to gain a much more expansive comprehension of the chemical principle, and be able to apply that understanding more on my journey for knowledge. The scientists write for other scientists, the writings that they work on are on the bleeding-edge of that field, and could be disproven or groundbreaking one day or the next. These writings would scare off most readers, and as such, are rarely ever found at the top of best-seller lists.
The main question with these writers is, "Should they write in these ways?" The answer is mostly yes, but perhaps there should be a little more “mixing” on the scientists' part. Scientists tend to detach themselves from general readership, and usually are used to thinking of their topics in specific ways. However, sometimes trying to explain a difficult topic in a basic manner can give new insight to the scientist doing the explaining. Take Einstein for example. When exploring motion and time, the general population would use traveling in a train as an example of having various points of perception and how time is experienced. Einstein wanted to prove that motion is relative to the observer but the train model did not always work. So, he came up with the analogy of a man in an infinitely tall elevator accelerating upward at a constant rate. The man inside would experience the accelaration as a “gravitational pull” and the man could potentially feel as if on Earth. Then Einstein realized that if a light was shone into the elevator, it would bend down slightly. He then thought of how if gravity was analogous to acceleration in that aspect, it should be able to been able to bend light. This then showed how gravity and acceleration can both affect frames of reference, and through continued thought processes, he was able to build even further on what we now know as general relativity. This proves that, while scientists should focus mostly on their research, being able to convey their ideas to an average person could become beneficial and help the scientists themselves in looking at their work in new light. If anyone should try and experiment with writing outside of the audience that they should be writing for, it should be the scientists, because as Albert Einstein once said, "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."
No comments:
Post a Comment