@FlatAssembler I'm not going to address much of what you posted because a lot of it was way off course. You're reading way too much into what I said. I just said that when you create a website that is, presumably, intended to communicate ideas and persuade people, making it easy and comfortable to read and navigate is a GOOD thing. I don't know what your skillset it is regarding HTML markup, but this website reminds me of some I saw 25 years ago when the technology was relatively new and there was little concept of what constitutes a well designed web page. Most of those are gone now, but you can get an idea from this page. It points out a few do's and don'ts of web design.
I could list everything I don't like, but the easiest way is for you to review well designed sites and take the best practices from them. Consider the Science based medicine website. This is a website with highly technical content, similar to yours, with the intent to inform/persuade. Notice how the articles use well constructed sentences and have actual spaces between paragraphs. The navigation doesn't take up half the page and there are no distracting objects luring your eye from the text. Graphical content is spliced into the text field to make it flow and read comfortably and has specific relevance to the subject, and graphics are all of high quality as well. It's also heavy with links and sources to supporting references. It doesn't matter who you are, you cannot be the expert in everything you write, so you must show where your ideas and opinions come from. In fact, that's a common hallmark of pseudoscience, someone promoting themselves as an absolute authority and slamming everyone else as a deceiver.
That's a strange way of looking at it. Think of it this way, no matter what you say, if I can't understand it or if it's too confusing, your message is lost. If not for the fact that I encountered you on this forum and you invited me to take a look at your website, I probably wouldn't have read more than two sentences.
That's a difficult question to answer. You're basically asking how to become a better writer. I suppose the obvious suggestions would be to take a creative writing class, study really good writers, read tons of books on the subject. I can suggest a few. Linguistics and writing skills are not the same thing. Learning language structure means you understand how to complete full sentences. Being a good writer is about communication, and linguistics is just one tool in your box.
Pseudosciences are widespread because of the way people react to nonsense: they ascribe the apparent incoherence to their own lack of knowledge.
I don't know where you got this idea but something about it is not quite right. For one thing, there are lots of reasons why pseudoscience is so prolific. Capitalism, poor education, politics, tribalism, fear and religion are all part of the problem. Our federal agencies try to regulate medical treatments, but because many people distrust the government, they feel the government is withholding "real" treatments while promoting treatments that do nothing but line the pockets of pharmaceutical executives. And I haven't even scratched the surface. There are dense books explaining why pseudoscience is such a problem. You simply can't adequately explain it in one sentence, so I wouldn't even try. You can, however, demonstrate in just a sentence or two how complex and deeply rooted the problem is, as I just did.
Well, sure but that's not what you said. You said the background behind scientific concepts aren't taught; in fact they are, at least here they are. And many scientific dead ends are also taught. Some of them have to be because those mistakes eventually led to real breakthroughs. A great example is Big Bang Theory vs Fred Hoyle's steady state theory. One thing that wasn't taught when I was in school or college is anything about pseudoscience. I would like to see that improved.
I also have one question regarding your assertions about a digital universe. If the universe really is a giant computer and we are all part of an elaborate simulation in that computer, why wouldn't that negate the importance of ethical concerns like being a vegetarian or libertarian or even a good person?
I could list everything I don't like, but the easiest way is for you to review well designed sites and take the best practices from them. Consider the Science based medicine website. This is a website with highly technical content, similar to yours, with the intent to inform/persuade. Notice how the articles use well constructed sentences and have actual spaces between paragraphs. The navigation doesn't take up half the page and there are no distracting objects luring your eye from the text. Graphical content is spliced into the text field to make it flow and read comfortably and has specific relevance to the subject, and graphics are all of high quality as well. It's also heavy with links and sources to supporting references. It doesn't matter who you are, you cannot be the expert in everything you write, so you must show where your ideas and opinions come from. In fact, that's a common hallmark of pseudoscience, someone promoting themselves as an absolute authority and slamming everyone else as a deceiver.
Quote:Sure. But if you are unwilling to say something just because you are not sure it is grammatical, grammar is getting in the way, rather than helping the communication.
That's a strange way of looking at it. Think of it this way, no matter what you say, if I can't understand it or if it's too confusing, your message is lost. If not for the fact that I encountered you on this forum and you invited me to take a look at your website, I probably wouldn't have read more than two sentences.
Quote:And how would you recommend me to improve my English? I mean, I have studied quite a bit of linguistics, I have also published some papers about it. If that is not enough, what is?
That's a difficult question to answer. You're basically asking how to become a better writer. I suppose the obvious suggestions would be to take a creative writing class, study really good writers, read tons of books on the subject. I can suggest a few. Linguistics and writing skills are not the same thing. Learning language structure means you understand how to complete full sentences. Being a good writer is about communication, and linguistics is just one tool in your box.
Quote:What do you think is misleading there? I think it is a lot less misleading than what is taught about history of science in schools.I don't know what schools you are referring to, but this likely isn't about something you learn in school anyway. Here's one example I noticed:
Pseudosciences are widespread because of the way people react to nonsense: they ascribe the apparent incoherence to their own lack of knowledge.
I don't know where you got this idea but something about it is not quite right. For one thing, there are lots of reasons why pseudoscience is so prolific. Capitalism, poor education, politics, tribalism, fear and religion are all part of the problem. Our federal agencies try to regulate medical treatments, but because many people distrust the government, they feel the government is withholding "real" treatments while promoting treatments that do nothing but line the pockets of pharmaceutical executives. And I haven't even scratched the surface. There are dense books explaining why pseudoscience is such a problem. You simply can't adequately explain it in one sentence, so I wouldn't even try. You can, however, demonstrate in just a sentence or two how complex and deeply rooted the problem is, as I just did.
Quote:Sometimes they are, but that is not nearly enough. If you teach only success stories from the history of science, and no stories of failure (which there are by at least an order of magnitude more), students get a heavily distorted picture of what was really going on.
Well, sure but that's not what you said. You said the background behind scientific concepts aren't taught; in fact they are, at least here they are. And many scientific dead ends are also taught. Some of them have to be because those mistakes eventually led to real breakthroughs. A great example is Big Bang Theory vs Fred Hoyle's steady state theory. One thing that wasn't taught when I was in school or college is anything about pseudoscience. I would like to see that improved.
I also have one question regarding your assertions about a digital universe. If the universe really is a giant computer and we are all part of an elaborate simulation in that computer, why wouldn't that negate the importance of ethical concerns like being a vegetarian or libertarian or even a good person?
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
~Julius Sumner Miller
