I am offended by the narrow vision of this forum

[Astronuc]

I'm not placing a relative value on anything. I was merely hypothesizing that the evolution of the syntax used may have been caused by the peer-reviewers being more likley to be impressed by concepts using impressive sounding language over concepts of equal value (to science) simply expressed. This would only be a human thing to do. If you want your journal to have the flavor of importance, it needs to sound important... right?

As far as I can tell, the staff at PF ARE concerned about the content. Fluffy or impressive language is superfluous if the underlying concept is faulty.

As a matter of statistics, how many peer-reviewed articles do you think have been published in the past 100 years? How many of those articles (in percent) have really had any significant impact on our knowledge base? Heck, most of them are just deriviations from the 100 year-old concepts of Einstein, Bohr, et al, right?

Wrong!

Anyway, I worry about the language because the language has become a time-honored tradition. Should I go to church in ragged clothes and belch loudly during the sermon? I think not.

I think one is losing credibility with statements like this.

 

[Moonbear]

Why scientists can't write in plain English is beyond me to fathom. I suspect it evolved from the competition to get published. Scientists with weak concepts but sophisticated language were probably more likely to get published than scientists with weak concepts that were simply articulated.

That's incorrect. Scientists do write in plain English. They spend a lot of time and effort ensuring that every single sentence they write is grammatically correct and conveys the precise meaning they intend to convey. If you're not understanding the terminology used, that probably means you're not sufficiently familiar with the science they are describing. Every field has specific terminology. It's not idiosyncratic language intended to hide weak concepts, it's technical terminology that strengthens concepts by using a very precise term with an equally precise definition. If something is written as all fluffy words with no substance, it will not get published. This is not middle school where a student who intersperses an English essay with words pulled from the OED can fool a lazy teacher into thinking s/he knows what s/he is talking about.

But, you already had your thread where these things were addressed. As the discussion is now straying into general complaints about scientists and publications rather than the vision the staff and members of PF hold for PF, it seems the discussion has run its course.

 

[quantumdude]

What he means is that the site is being run out of America, under American law and American values.

I assumed that's what he meant, but he's got the wrong idea entirely. This site is owned by Greg Bernhardt, and he gets to decide what is posted here. He has done that with the help of the staff he appointed.

The relevant section of American law and values here is the sanctity of private property. In effect InfernoSun's insistence on posting against the Global Guidelines is ultimately an infringement on Greg's freedom of speech. You want to have it your way? Get your own website and attract your own membership, rather than become a parasite of PF.