(no subject)
I really like reading the geology articles in Science. It's not that I understand them, although they are more approachable than molecular biology articles. It's that they're really, really funny.
I understand that it's an important field of science, of course, with great economic and geological significance, but geology does all comes down to rocks, and the people who write about them are always so angry . . . because it's not just a matter of the articles, but of the letters to the editor. For every important geology paper, there are about three incensed letters disparaging the science, the scientists, and the scientists' mothers and extended families. These researchers are bitter.
I can imagine them all sitting in on geology meetings, rivals glaring at each other in stony silence. A presenter stands up and references another's obscure fault, and then all the pressure is suddenly released and the room erupts in pent-up anger, petrifying those innocent bystanders who just aren't in the field. Sparring continues until all the wrath has eroded or cooled down . . . pending the next eagerly-anticipated crack-up.
You get just a taste of that in the written record. If I ever cancel my subscription to Science, I'm definitely going to get another one to a cheaper journal focused solely on geology.
Also in this issue was an article claiming that data points have guardian angels capable of testifying to their data's veracities, providing yet another excuse for biologists to pitch inconvenient findings.
I understand that it's an important field of science, of course, with great economic and geological significance, but geology does all comes down to rocks, and the people who write about them are always so angry . . . because it's not just a matter of the articles, but of the letters to the editor. For every important geology paper, there are about three incensed letters disparaging the science, the scientists, and the scientists' mothers and extended families. These researchers are bitter.
I can imagine them all sitting in on geology meetings, rivals glaring at each other in stony silence. A presenter stands up and references another's obscure fault, and then all the pressure is suddenly released and the room erupts in pent-up anger, petrifying those innocent bystanders who just aren't in the field. Sparring continues until all the wrath has eroded or cooled down . . . pending the next eagerly-anticipated crack-up.
You get just a taste of that in the written record. If I ever cancel my subscription to Science, I'm definitely going to get another one to a cheaper journal focused solely on geology.
Also in this issue was an article claiming that data points have guardian angels capable of testifying to their data's veracities, providing yet another excuse for biologists to pitch inconvenient findings.