Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

ArXiv crackpot filter developed by accident

  1. May 19, 2016 #1

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    A very interesting blog post (from @hossi).

    A program that helps sorting arXiv submissions into categories frequently struggles with crackpot submissions - because they do not fit in anywhere. The program was never designed for it, but is helps finding them.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 19, 2016 #2

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Haha! Nice!
     
  4. May 19, 2016 #3
    Fun! And interesting too...
     
  5. May 19, 2016 #4

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    I almost automatically have to think about the documentation of Darwin's Life I saw today. Or this Japanese mathematician whose proof nobody else in the world can understand. (Sorry I've forgotten name and conjecture.) And Einstein has been lucky that a solar eclipse came around. And his "biggest stupidity" has now a value.
     
  6. May 19, 2016 #5
    Nice indeed. Over time I have come to loath crackpottery because it does so much damage to those who are still learning. They come to believe things that haven't been proven, in occasions can be proved wrong, and sometimes are extremely biased toward a subject with more crackpoterry.

    However, this is another reason to stick to my language when writing a scientific paper. Otherwise I think I would fall on that spit out category, even if I'm not, just because English is not my first language and if I were to write a paper in English, I would 100% certainly use words not used by native English speakers. Not because I'm not trained in science, but because I'm not natively trained in English.

    Interesting to note is that once when I took an IQ test at a doctor, the IQ test was in my language and I scored above average. Yet, in the crappy online IQ tests, that are given in English, I score average and in ocassions even lower than average because they are in English and sometimes I don't even understand the instructions correctly (what they are asking me to do). So in my language I'm above average, in English, not over and sometimes even lower than average. Another reason for me to believe that online IQ tests are biased in favor of some groups at the expense of other groups.

    So sorry before hand my PF fellows if sometimes I sound below average in my posts. :oops:

    It is therefore also consequential that a non native English speaker runs higher chances of being classified as an outsider by an English speaking community. :sorry:

    Not because the person doesn't know science, but because the person doesn't communicate the same way, even if they apply the same scientific method. :confused:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  7. May 20, 2016 #6

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Most scientists learn English as a foreign language. Scientific English is not so hard to learn I think. You don't want to use complicated grammar or unusual words* anyway.

    *unusual as in "not used in everyday language AND not a scientific expression".
     
  8. May 20, 2016 #7

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    I've once been told by a scientist: (with a staccato accent) "Scientific English is broken English."
     
  9. May 26, 2016 #8

    MathematicalPhysicist

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I came across this week while reading Principles of Algebraic Geometry by Griffiths and Harris to the word "abut", I never encountered this word in my life.

    So I guess that also scientific English uses quite a lot unusual words; it depends on the period of time the book was publsihed; if it's further to the past the language will differ from nowadays English.
     
  10. May 26, 2016 #9

    ShayanJ

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    As someone knowing English as a second language, I've never encountered such a thing! I've been here since high school and my English wasn't as good as it is now surely. I even can say that I got better at English partly because of my involvement with physicsforums and during all these years, I don't remember being labeled a crackpot because of not being good enough at English. So I'm sure you don't need to worry about this.
    When you regularly read scientific writings, either forum posts or papers, you can easily recognize a crackpot. I myself have experienced it several times. After even reading a sentence or two of the post, I said to myself this guy is surely a crackpot and it had nothing to do with the way s\he used English. In fact as far as I can remember, all of the crackpots I recognized were native speakers.
     
  11. May 26, 2016 #10
    The fact that other people may not have a good command of a certain language should not preclude the use of less than common words. This is especially true if the word in question has a highly defined meaning. It should be self evident that one should give consideration to the intended recipient of a communication and select words accordingly.
    I do not think it is appropriate that I should limit your vocabulary due to my lack of understanding of the language being used.

    Cheers,

    Billy
     
  12. May 26, 2016 #11

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    That was not my point. Taken randomly from a random theoretical particle physics preprint on arXiv:
    You don't want to write literature - the physics is complicated enough, adding complicated grammar doesn't help anyone. And you also want to use words with a clear meaning to everyone, which usually means you use the words everyone else uses. I'm sure you can find different ways to say "leading order", for example, but why should you? There is certainly a synonym for "resonance", but everyone calls it resonance because everyone knows what everyone else means by that word.

    Taken from a random crackpot webpage:
    See the difference?
    That is not literature either, but the choice of words is completely different.
     
  13. May 26, 2016 #12
    Hi mfb,
    I don't think we are in any disagreement. Most anyone not directly involved in physics would likely not understand the word "diphoton" used in the first text for example. I myself have only a very limited understanding of that word and I assume it means a resonance particle.

    My comment was less about syntax and more about the use of words that clearly define something in standard language. For example, the word "bruise" is a word most anyone would understand and communicates well enough in some cases. It is not as descriptive as the term "subcutaneous hematoma" a word that many people would consider perhaps unusual.

    I 100% agree with your example of the use of the word resonance, why would one call that term anything else. I don't see any synonym that I could use to replace that word. I also agree that the use of "literary" devices have little or no place in the language of science. While the phrase "the force that through the green fuse drives the flower" may produce a smile it would get in the way of a someone understanding biology....lol

    I had little issue understanding both of the text you posted but I don't think either one was very well written. Both communicated. The first one was based on the laws of physics as we currently understand them. The second was pure speculation and opinion with no basis in fact written in a manner to elicit emotional response.

    Real "crackpots" are easy to spot. They have a personal agenda inconsistent with generally excepted facts and are highly emotionally involved in their beliefs. On the other hand it is sometimes very difficult to spot people who are unformed and are stating something as fact. I hear so call subject matter experts on the TV news and in print and the internet, that have very little idea what they are talking about. This includes very well educated people who should know better. These folks are more problematic than the crackpots.

    More than a crackpot algorithm we need a fact checking algorithm. Until that happens those people who actually know and understand things will be burdened with the responsibility of exposing and correcting the nonsense that gets written by crackpots and the unformed alike.

    Cheers,

    Billy
     
  14. May 26, 2016 #13

    TeethWhitener

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is one of the best examples I've ever seen.
     
  15. May 26, 2016 #14

    1oldman2

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  16. May 26, 2016 #15

    e.bar.goum

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Indeed. As a native English speaker, I've had to make a definite effort to simplify my choice of words and sentence structure for Scientific English.
     
  17. May 27, 2016 #16

    BiGyElLoWhAt

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You know what? I actually really like the conclusion. That's been something that I've been struggling with for a bit. It seems like a lot of stuff is really quick to get tossed out if it doesn't have support by Kaku, or Hawking, or ...
     
  18. May 27, 2016 #17

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    What?
     
  19. May 28, 2016 #18

    sophiecentaur

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Can there really be any surprise about all this? If we used a machine like language to live our lives then we could only communicate simple machine like ideas. Language is greater than this.
    Science is not easy, even less at the cutting edge and we must expect confusion whenever everyday language is used as a description.
    Maths does a good job, here.
    I detect notes of complaint about the fact that non-native English speakers find difficulty and demands for non-mathematical explanations.
    We are stuck with the way language is so rich and the way it is used. No complaints.
     
  20. May 28, 2016 #19

    BiGyElLoWhAt

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I don't know, maybe it's just because I'm an undergrad and I'm basing this on personal experience (people within the department). Also, there seem to be some (in my opinion) interesting and neat theories that have fizzled out. Maybe there's a reason for that, as I'm not necessarily versed on any of these with any sort of depth.
    What I was referencing was the last couple paragraphs:
    Maybe it's, again, just not accessible to me as an undergrad, but I don't tend to see many "out there" theories. I even did a google search yesterday trying to find some, and the most "out there" thing that I came across was Unparticle theory.

    He also referenced a stat that the rate of production of these "out there" theories has declined by about a percent, from 3 point something to 2 point something, and the given reason for this was conformism. Not sure if that was the researchers conclusion or the bloggers, though.

     
  21. May 28, 2016 #20

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    I guess 2.67% of 1990s' publication rate is still more than 3.54% of 1980s' publication rate. Science is getting more complex, so you need more and more papers to cover the same fields and also new fields. You can't have something like special relativity in every new publication.
    They are "out there" for a good reason, and they are rare for the same good reason.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: ArXiv crackpot filter developed by accident
  1. Accident (Replies: 13)

  2. ArXiV freedom (Replies: 10)

  3. The Crackpot Index (Replies: 8)

  4. The crackpot index (Replies: 19)

  5. What is arxiv? (Replies: 2)

Loading...