Dear Jorge and Eco-log, As a self-proclaimed "science translator" I completely agree with the synopsis of many forms of science becoming unintelligible to many people. I believe based upon (limited) life long empirical evidence that while it is in our human nature to strive for elitism in language (inside jokes, secret languages etc), most of the current problems we face stem more from an inadequate language, with limited words, and the result of the desire for specificity in words.
In addition I have observed in many labs, people (particularly on the cutting edge of new discoveries) develop names (often as jokes) to describe what they are seeing or discovering. These words and names, unless you make it a habit of reading the multitudes of highly detailed peer reviewed literature, would easily pass by most people. Add a few more years and everyone within a specific field of study may now be using these new terms. Having been someone who has encouraged young people to utilize journal articles in their studies and research, and have observed first hand the confused and blank stares after simply reading the abstract. I think we as scientists do have a problem we should at the very least attempt to remedy. We just need to be able to find ways to do it and not decrease our accuracy and specificity in words. Clayton Kern Program Coordinator and Naturalist Kestrel Educational Adventures http://kestreleducation.org On Oct 29, 2016 9:52 PM, "Jorge A. Santiago-Blay" <blayjo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Origins of distinctly diminished interdisciplinary communication? > > Dear Colleagues: > > Question: Does anyone has an idea on the origins of diminished interdisciplinary communication in many academic disciplines, including the subject matter of this listserver? > > Background: I just returned from a day-long professional meeting re. inclusion of the arts (*sensu lato*) in the teaching of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (= STEM). The meeting was fascinating and one of the reasons for that were the extended periods for discussions. One interesting discussion topic was the origin of diminished interdisciplinary communication. > > While in the so-called western world the second half of the 19th century approximately marks a rapid increase in scientific knowledge and consequently, new words, today, I learned that (supposedly) the distinctly diminished interdisciplinary communication comes later. Specifically, I was surprised by the comment of a participant expressing that such diminished communication may have been exacerbated by the emphasis in the purity of many disciplines (STEM or non-STEM). In turn, this purity may have been an effect of elitists ideologies, such as fascism. > > Are you aware of any scholarship in this topic? This is related to science (lack of) communication that I suspect many of us have experienced whereby scientists try to speak (or write) to impress instead of to communicate. In simpler words, since when was it has been "cool" to, given the increase in knowledge, to alienate through the use of intelligible language - instead of bringing together - people of different disciplines? > > If you have any constructive comments, please send them directly to me at: blayjo...@gmail.com > > Apologies for potential duplicate emails. > > Sincerely, > > Jorge > > Jorge A. Santiago-Blay, PhD > blaypublishers.com <http://blaypublishers.com> > > 1. Positive experiences for authors of papers published in *LEB* http://blaypublishers.com/testimonials/ > > 2. Free examples of papers published in *LEB*: http://blaypublishers.com/category/previous-issues/. > > 3. *Guidelines for Authors* and page charges of *LEB*: http://blaypublishers.com/archives/ *.* > > 4. Want to subscribe to *LEB*? http://blaypublishers.com/subscriptions/ > > > http://blayjorge.wordpress.com/ <http://blayjorge.wordpress.com/> > http://paleobiology.si.edu/staff/individuals/santiagoblay.cfm <http://paleobiology.si.edu/staff/individuals/santiagoblay.cfm>
