I think this is partly a matter of form. Marwan may have judged these
slides inappropriate because they use the wrong style of speech. I
would have tossed them out for that reason. It is a matter of saying
things in a certain way. In a formal presentation at a chemistry
conference, you can say more-or-less what Krivit said, but you have
to use different words. For example, as I noted, Slide 34 says: "Blue
line allegedly represents 24 MeV"
"Allegedly" is a loaded word! That's a no-no. I assume it means:
"They say the blue line represents 24 MeV but I doubt it and I
suspect they know it doesn't." Okay, go ahead and say that, but say
it in turgid, indirect, insincere, passive-voice Academese:
Blue line represents 24 MeV *
* Doubts have been raised about the positioning of this line
Slide 30 says that SRI:
- Invented Helium Retention Hypothesis
- Performed No Tests to Verify Hypothesis
That's too strong! Put it under some layers of mealymothed obfuscation:
- Insufficient experimental justification for helium retention hypothesis
- Tests used to verify this hypothesis were from another set of
experiments and may not be applicable
(I disagree with those two statements, by the way. I think there is
sold evidence that helium retention explains these results.)
That's how you talk while giving a presentation at an academic
conference at the podium. Later on in the hall you are free to say "I
think that blue line is imaginary" or "they had no business putting
that line where they did."
It resembles the stylized way of saying things during a Congressional
hearing on the floor, which you might have heard if you tuned in to
the healthcare hearings. Everyone is referred to as the "gentleman
from Missouri" or "the gentlewoman from New York."
When they call a time-out and stop running down the clock for the
person in your party who has the floor, you are allowed to say -- or
intone -- "I request unanimous consent to revise and extend my
remarks in opposition to this flawed legislation" but if you start
waving a copy of the bill or call it "unconstitutional" you have
exceeded your allotted time-out time-slice and the chairman gavels
you down and reads the rules. Unless your party's
person-with-the-floor grants you a minute and the clock starts to run
down, you cannot say more than the ritual statement. This is
important. There has to be limit to the duration of debates, or a
minority could filibuster something to death.
These rules may seem silly but they have evolved over two centuries
to protect both the feelings of the minority and the prerogatives of
the majority which, after all, has a right to conduct its business
and pass legislation after due consideration. People should not bend
these rules or unilaterally trash them. The rules for presentations
at physics and chemistry conferences may not be as clearly defined or
as stylized, but they are real. No one -- not Krivit or anyone else
-- should be allowed to violate them with a presentation that
expresses things inappropriately -- inappropriate to that forum I
mean. If you want to use such language, go to the halls or a poster
session. Along the same lines, a member of Congress who wishes to
deliver a partisan rant (on either side of the debate) is free to
step outside the floor of Congress and blab on for as long as he or
feels like it, and say just about anything, as lurid as you like. No
one's freedom of speech or academic freedom is threatened as long as
everyone is held to the same standard on the floor of Congress or at
a chemistry conference, and as long as other forums and means of
communication are unimpeded.
- Jed
