Should Journalists Embrace Jargon? 184
ananyo writes "In an opinion piece for Nature, science writer Trevor Quirk argues that researchers use jargon to 'capture the complexity and specificity of scientific concepts.' Avoiding jargon might mean that a piece ends up easier to read, but explaining a jargon term using everyday language 'does not present the whole truth,' he says. 'I find it troubling that the same antipathy that some writers express towards jargon has taken root in the public's general attitude towards erudite language. I submit that this is no coincidence. People seem to resent not just specialized language, but any language that requires a large degree of labour to understand, appreciate and use,' he writes. 'The world increases in complexity every day, and we should not let shrink our capacity to describe it.'"
Link to article (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes, absolutely (Score:4, Informative)
But "God particle" and "goddamn particle" are not the same. While "goddamn particle" came from a prominent physicist, the actual name that people use in the media came from the editor of a prominent physicist and the bowdlerized word has none of the same connotations as the original.
Re:Unnecessary (Score:5, Informative)
Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it unnecessary.
"Pneumothorax: accumulation of air in the chest leading to collapse of the lung"
"leading to" != "is".
Also, I kinda doubt a doctor talking to a patient uses "big words" to show they're smart, since at that point that usually is established. It is simply the more correct term. Like you say "browser" when talking to someone else, instead of "the window in which websites show up". You say browser, and make sure they know what you mean by explaining what it is. But you don't say something that's technically bullshit, just to appease them.
Also, some patients actually prefer not having their diagnosis watered down for them. Them being adults and all that. If that's not you, why not shut the fuck up? If you don't understand what they're saying and can't be arsed to learn, just tell them "I'm too dumb or lazy too understand, just do your thing please". And don't forget to say thank you, either, when they fixed your boo-boo.
Argot? Bullshit. You're the conspirator in this case, by being proud of being ignorant.
Re:Unnecessary (Score:4, Informative)
Is it really necessary to say "Mr.Smith, you have a serious condition called 'pneumothorax'", followed by an explanation when you could simply say "Mr.Smith, your lung has collapsed."? If there already is a simple descriptive term that adequately expresses what you wish to say, stop inventing argot just so you can look smart.
Actually, I'm pretty sure they give diseases specific names so that they can match the cure to the disease. You might not really need to know that you have pneumothorax, but your doctors, nurses, and pharmacists do.
Saying "your lung collapsed" is not sufficient. That's like diagnosing you with "an infection." It might be all you care to know, but that much knowledge isn't enough to get you cured.
P.S. Pneumothorax doesn't mean you have a collapsed lung.
Re:How to use the DOI system ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes, absolutely (Score:5, Informative)
A particle is a piece of a thing.
Not when it's a wave.
Re:The use of jargons (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Yes, absolutely (Score:4, Informative)
That's more financial sector than economic. What (if anything) should the government be doing to get us out of this economic crisis now that it's here is a huge question. And the moment you start using nonsense jargon like saltwater vs freshwater economics people (probably rightfully) tune you out, but then if you can't talk about nominal vs PPP debt, real versus nominal interest rates and so on you can't even start to have a discussion.
If you look at the serious economic problem of the day, which is greek and spanish debt, concepts like nominal wage rigidity and internal devaluation are central to understanding why austerity is a disaster for them (it's bad and wrong for everyone else right now too, but when they're trapped in the EURO without a fiscal union they're in particularly bad shape).
Re:Yes, absolutely (Score:4, Informative)
The credit default swaps and some other financial instruments are moderately hard to explain
Stephanie Flanders and Robert Preston have both done a good job in their BBC blogs. And they usually structure their articles with some definitions and background at the top, then the news part after the first subheading. If you're familiar with the background (i.e. you read their last few articles on related subjects) then you can skip the first few paragraphs. I usually now start in the middle, and if I found something I didn't understand go back to the top and read the bit where they explain it. It's a shame that they don't make more use of hypertext: it's pretty trivial to just link jargon terms to a definition on first use...