It is generally believed that scientists do not publish their failures; however, as usual, things are a bit different on the blogosphere. Effect measure begins a blog experiment (which is already judged to have failed).
So, what is the experiment?
The experiment was to see if a paper that used a coupled system of non-linear ordinary differential equations as its main technical tool could be explained sufficiently so a lay audience could understand what was involved and how the model worked. In that way they would have a better appreciation for the findings and some understanding of an important tool, mathematical modeling.
Why is it deemed a failure?
That’s where, we judge, the experiment fails. The blog format is both flexible and constraining. Readers come for short, usually stand alone, posts about something they’re interested in or just to see what’s being said in the blogosphere, a venue that has become surprisingly influential. They don’t come for a connected series of sixteen posts on a single specialized scientific paper.
Unfortunately, after their cost-benefit analysis, they have decided not to repeat the experiment, which, I think is a pity. Probably, more and more of you should visit Effect measure, follow through all the posts, and leave comments and queries, which will make them realise that the experiment is not a failure, after all?
On my part, I am starting a blog meme and tagging Abi, Phani, Santa and Nayagam to link to the series and tag four bloggers each! Of course, you are welcome to link to the story even if I haven’t tagged you. Have fun!
March 21, 2007 at 12:02 pm |
Hmmm, may we know what we are being asked to do (through your blog meme and tagging)?
March 21, 2007 at 1:27 pm |
Dear Abi,
I just wanted more people to know about the experiment; so, if you can link to the post(s) and ask at least four of your friends to do the same, may be more people will visit the blog and participate in the discussions; the idea is that the response they receive might make them change their mind about repeating the experiment.
Guru
March 23, 2007 at 7:18 pm |
Is there a reason they didn’t just make their paper available online?
March 23, 2007 at 7:39 pm |
Dear Mathew,
They are making the paper available online — in sixteen installments; till now, three of them are published — Part 1, 2, 3. But, unfortunately, they have decided not to repeat the experiment.
March 26, 2007 at 6:09 pm |
I mean, is there a reason they don’t just give the whole paper online in one go? Papers are usually meant to be read like that.
If they want to write a blog they should write a blog
March 26, 2007 at 6:58 pm |
Dear Mathew,
I guess you are right. That is why they are saying that the medium of blogging is limited in writing stuff of this sort.
Further, in one of the other posts, they also tell how writing these posts is a moving target for them. So, the advantage of writing it in the blog format is that they can do it piece-meal, and modify the content as they go along.
Personally, I too found that writing several posts on a given topic is much easier than writing one single monolith.
April 6, 2007 at 12:10 am |
[...] clock, points to the recent series of epic posts of Revere at Effect Measure (about which I wrote here), and a post of PZ at Pharyngula as example posts from which to learn how to read scientific [...]