Are a lot of you math and science types poor at english

In summary, many scientists and math types are poor at English because many scientists come from countries where English is not the primary language. However, I think that many of them are better than the average native speaker at writing scientific text. Frylock also has a good point in that many people who type poorly don't understand English well enough to do it properly.
  • #71
Cyrus said:
This is the second time you misused the word theory. Look it up! Theory does not mean hypothesis.

Case in point, for my earlier post. The original definition of the word 'theory' is actually much closer to the general use definition and not very different from the definition of 'hypothesis'. The formalized definition for scientific jargon is a later development. Of course Sportsstar used the term in reference to the scientific method and ought have used it properly in that context. Not necessarily incorrect but sloppy jargon certainly.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
So...can we call troll yet? I think a lot of you guys are being played right now, which makes sense because the guy is a sports star.
 
  • #73
Tobias Funke said:
So...can we call troll yet? I think a lot of you guys are being played right now, which makes sense because the guy is a sports star.
No, I don't think he's a troll. A troll would make outlandish claims. These are just simple, correctable errors. If he is trying to troll, he's not succeeding.
 
  • #74
I have always studied the sciences, and I have always had very poor writing skills. For years I relied on a Dictaphone, because I actually speak very well. Thank goodness for spell check. I still sort of guess where the commas go, and often confuse their for there. Lol.
 
  • #75
sportsstar469 said:
tell me how i have below average english skills in this post? capitalization aside due to laziness, i get my point across, and deliver a clear fluid argument, with good word choices. although i did make a careless mistake and say divulge when dispel should have been used.,/

This again proves how shoddy the premise of the OP was. Lazyness trumps English skill.

sportsstar469 said:
i suppose since the person i was quoting said it was clear my english skills were poor, he is not good at science. after all he did not go through the scientific method, using my english skills. he just bypassed the theory process and said it was CLEAR that my skills are poor. which means it is a fact.

The English skills you have demonstrated are poor. However at least you explained them away through lazyness. We can only go off what is demonstrated, so until some unparalleled piece of prose flows from your fingers, we are perfectly valid to bash you and your 'skills'.

sportsstar469 said:
also i guess you logical physicists aren't too logical after all. after all you say i assume things when i never made any assumptions. questions are far from assumptions. in fact some people ask questions to avoid making assumptions

Our logic >>> Your English skills. Always and forever.
 
  • #76
sportsstar469 said:
something is a theory long before it is a afact.

So, since Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been around a long time - more than 100 years - and verified extensively via the scientific method, it should now be Einstein's Fact of Relativity? I think you misunderstand exactly what the word theory means.
 
  • #77
Tobias Funke said:
So...can we call troll yet? I think a lot of you guys are being played right now, which makes sense because the guy is a sports star.

My troll sensor reads zero.
 
  • #78
hypatia said:
I have always studied the sciences, and I have always had very poor writing skills. For years I relied on a Dictaphone, because I actually speak very well. Thank goodness for spell check. I still sort of guess where the commas go, and often confuse their for there. Lol.

yeah, as a student whose struggled in math, i have always held mathematically inclined people to such a high standard. I'd always say, that if one was a genius in math, he could do all the other subjects with such ease. I met a student in my biology class, who is currently in calculus 3. He is getting 30s-70s on his biology quizzes. it shocked me. It prompted this question however. Id say biology involves more memorization and left sided thinking.

thanks for sharing your story dudde./
 
  • #79
jgens said:
So, since Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been around a long time - more than 100 years - and verified extensively via the scientific method, it should now be Einstein's Fact of Relativity? I think you misunderstand exactly what the word theory means.

I don't see a violation of the hierarchy of scientific certainty here. If we are dead sure of the correctness of relativity, we should move it up to 'law' level, not 'fact level'. Also maybe we were too quick to accept Newtons idea on law levels before seeing the problems with it on quantum levels and cosmic levels.
 
  • #81
sportsstar469 said:
yeah, as a student whose struggled in math ...
Sportsstar, as a writer who's struggled with English, you are the gift that keeps on giving. Why is this English more exemplary than the your - you're error that got this thread started?
 
  • #82
By the way, I vote for troll. Actually, I read the posts pro and con without knowing what a troll was. The only one I ever knew about was in a short novel I read at the age of 6. That one ate goats so I thought you guys meant he was trying to get our goat which is not far off. Here is a definition I got from googling.

wiki (therefor unreliable) said:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

It's a tough call. His "Do you still beat your wife?"-like question in the subject line qualifies as inflammatory, but not controversial, irrelevant, or off-topic. It did not disrupt anything. However, the discrepency between his stated prowess in English and his actual ability makes me question his primary intent. I say he's a troll, but as with the English language, he's not very good at it.
 
  • #83
Evo said:
No, I don't think he's a troll. A troll would make outlandish claims. These are just simple, correctable errors. If he is trying to troll, he's not succeeding.

To quote from wiki:

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response..."

A troll doesn't have to behave intentionally trollish. Seeing his behaviour in this thread and others, I think he thrives on the emotional responses to his inflammatory posts.

Edit: looks like jimmysnyder beat me to the quote...
 
  • #84
Andre said:
I don't see a violation of the hierarchy of scientific certainty here. If we are dead sure of the correctness of relativity, we should move it up to 'law' level, not 'fact level'. Also maybe we were too quick to accept Newtons idea on law levels before seeing the problems with it on quantum levels and cosmic levels.

perhaps the scientific method should be revised =p. lol jk.
 
  • #85
sportsstar469 said:
perhaps the scientific method should be revised =p. lol jk.

Trolling is practically a sport these days. A good "troll" does not want to be discovered as such. There is a whole internet subculture associated with this.


In my opinion, this guy is "doin' it for the lulz"
 
  • #87
This thread has run its course.
 
<h2>1. Why are math and science types often perceived as poor at English?</h2><p>This perception may stem from the fact that math and science are heavily focused on logic and problem-solving, while English involves more creative and subjective thinking. Therefore, individuals who excel in math and science may struggle with the more abstract and interpretive aspects of English.</p><h2>2. Is it true that math and science types struggle with language and communication?</h2><p>While some individuals may have difficulty with language and communication, it is not a universal trait among all math and science types. Many scientists and mathematicians are skilled communicators and have a strong grasp of language.</p><h2>3. Can being good at math and science make someone bad at English?</h2><p>No, being good at one subject does not necessarily make someone bad at another. While individuals may have strengths and weaknesses in different areas, it is not accurate to say that excelling in math and science automatically makes someone poor at English.</p><h2>4. Are there any benefits to being proficient in both math/science and English?</h2><p>Absolutely! Being proficient in both math/science and English can open up a wide range of opportunities, as it allows for a well-rounded education and skill set. Additionally, many fields, such as medicine and engineering, require a strong understanding of both math/science and English.</p><h2>5. How can math and science types improve their English skills?</h2><p>Like any skill, practice and exposure are key to improving English skills. Math and science types can benefit from reading and writing frequently, seeking feedback from others, and taking courses or workshops specifically focused on improving language and communication skills.</p>

1. Why are math and science types often perceived as poor at English?

This perception may stem from the fact that math and science are heavily focused on logic and problem-solving, while English involves more creative and subjective thinking. Therefore, individuals who excel in math and science may struggle with the more abstract and interpretive aspects of English.

2. Is it true that math and science types struggle with language and communication?

While some individuals may have difficulty with language and communication, it is not a universal trait among all math and science types. Many scientists and mathematicians are skilled communicators and have a strong grasp of language.

3. Can being good at math and science make someone bad at English?

No, being good at one subject does not necessarily make someone bad at another. While individuals may have strengths and weaknesses in different areas, it is not accurate to say that excelling in math and science automatically makes someone poor at English.

4. Are there any benefits to being proficient in both math/science and English?

Absolutely! Being proficient in both math/science and English can open up a wide range of opportunities, as it allows for a well-rounded education and skill set. Additionally, many fields, such as medicine and engineering, require a strong understanding of both math/science and English.

5. How can math and science types improve their English skills?

Like any skill, practice and exposure are key to improving English skills. Math and science types can benefit from reading and writing frequently, seeking feedback from others, and taking courses or workshops specifically focused on improving language and communication skills.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
843
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
138
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top