Language desk | ||
---|---|---|
< July 24 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 26 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Here is part of a poem I wrote. I seem to write most poems in this metre. I would like to know what type of metre it is.
KägeTorä - (影虎) ( Chin Wag) 02:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
-`---`- --`--`-- -`-`-`- --`-`-`
Looks like some type of an iamb. Especially the 1st and 3rd lines are pure iambic. -- Lüboslóv Yęzýkin ( talk) 11:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
What word can be used for the type of papers/articles (usually humanitarian) which have low quality, have no or little sources, trivial conclusions, just verbose texts about nothing but pretending to be scientific, but nevertheless not pseudo-scientific in the traditional sense? This type of "science about nothing", "science for science's sake" is quite wide-spread today.-- Lüboslóv Yęzýkin ( talk) 13:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Любослов Езыкин -- Generic terms are "filler", "Curriculum Vitae fodder", "published only to bolster the author's credentials on paper towards achieving tenure" etc., but none of those are science-specific... AnonMoos ( talk) 23:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
“ |
|
” |
— Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5) |
Thanks everyone. No, the BS word is too straightforward and offending. I'd like more neutral euphemisms. It happened I was having a conversation with some guy about his "scientific" article which was not good at all, and he seemed to have no good competence (just shallow general knowledge; many ordinary RD/L-ers here know much more) in what he was writing about (in spite of his degrees and all) but I couldn't find a proper word to characterise it. At the end I decided not to use one word, I didn't name this and just said the paper was bad and shallow or like that. Nevertheless, he didn't like my very short simple critic and was very offended. He appeared to be such an arrogant person. I do not want to give his name though, sorry.
It is not about traditional pseudoscience, it is about "science-like" texts ("mimicry science", hm?). From the first look they are good but they are about nothing. Many words but no good science. I was lurking through a dictionary for scribble, twaddle, babble, etc. but no, too informal. Verbiage? Not exactly. So, probably, there is no good euphemism for that. These works are pretending to be scientific but they'd be better considered as petty amateur journalism. Like the guy above, he thinks he is smart and competent and has a degree (wow!), he writes about something he knows little about, he's sure his piece is worth something, but in reality it is nonsense and textual trash. He may even send it somewhere and get it published, because he has good connections ("science mafia"?). I have had no illusions about modern science, but frankly after that I was very disappointed about such low level of it. I don't want to and cannot call this "scientific", it should offend good "old school" scientists.--
Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (
talk) 15:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Language desk | ||
---|---|---|
< July 24 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 26 > |
Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Here is part of a poem I wrote. I seem to write most poems in this metre. I would like to know what type of metre it is.
KägeTorä - (影虎) ( Chin Wag) 02:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
-`---`- --`--`-- -`-`-`- --`-`-`
Looks like some type of an iamb. Especially the 1st and 3rd lines are pure iambic. -- Lüboslóv Yęzýkin ( talk) 11:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
What word can be used for the type of papers/articles (usually humanitarian) which have low quality, have no or little sources, trivial conclusions, just verbose texts about nothing but pretending to be scientific, but nevertheless not pseudo-scientific in the traditional sense? This type of "science about nothing", "science for science's sake" is quite wide-spread today.-- Lüboslóv Yęzýkin ( talk) 13:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Любослов Езыкин -- Generic terms are "filler", "Curriculum Vitae fodder", "published only to bolster the author's credentials on paper towards achieving tenure" etc., but none of those are science-specific... AnonMoos ( talk) 23:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
“ |
|
” |
— Macbeth (Act 5, Scene 5) |
Thanks everyone. No, the BS word is too straightforward and offending. I'd like more neutral euphemisms. It happened I was having a conversation with some guy about his "scientific" article which was not good at all, and he seemed to have no good competence (just shallow general knowledge; many ordinary RD/L-ers here know much more) in what he was writing about (in spite of his degrees and all) but I couldn't find a proper word to characterise it. At the end I decided not to use one word, I didn't name this and just said the paper was bad and shallow or like that. Nevertheless, he didn't like my very short simple critic and was very offended. He appeared to be such an arrogant person. I do not want to give his name though, sorry.
It is not about traditional pseudoscience, it is about "science-like" texts ("mimicry science", hm?). From the first look they are good but they are about nothing. Many words but no good science. I was lurking through a dictionary for scribble, twaddle, babble, etc. but no, too informal. Verbiage? Not exactly. So, probably, there is no good euphemism for that. These works are pretending to be scientific but they'd be better considered as petty amateur journalism. Like the guy above, he thinks he is smart and competent and has a degree (wow!), he writes about something he knows little about, he's sure his piece is worth something, but in reality it is nonsense and textual trash. He may even send it somewhere and get it published, because he has good connections ("science mafia"?). I have had no illusions about modern science, but frankly after that I was very disappointed about such low level of it. I don't want to and cannot call this "scientific", it should offend good "old school" scientists.--
Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (
talk) 15:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)