Voice Critique

Andrew Jaffe’s blog Leaves on the Line possesses a voice that is highly academic and intellectual in nature (Jaffe himself is a cosmologist) and is clearly geared toward an audience of comparable status. This is seen in his word choice and within that the levels of complexity and detail in his post “Doctors, Deep Fields and Dark Matter”.

(I should point out a few caveats in my micro-analysis of their data. First, I don’t take into account the uncertainty in their background rate, which they say is really 0.8+0.1+_0.2…Second, I’ve only plotted the likelihood above, but true Bayesians will want to apply a prior probability and plot the posterior distribution. The most sensible choice (the so-called Jeffreys prior) for this case would in fact make the probability peak at zero signal….)

There are several interesting choices worthy of pointing out. For one, it is clear by his discussion of complex scientific theories and principles with no explanation accompanying them that he assumes his audience is already familiar with and proficient in these topics. Second, it seems to me as though he is not engaging of the audience as much as he seems to be writing a formal research paper on the topic. I say this because there is a complete lack of diction that would indicate interest in dialogue; we never see What do you think?, Right? or any other solicitation of opinion or advice from others. Despite this fact, however, it is important to note that this blog is of a serious and precise nature that does not require as part of its message open dialogue. Third, his use of parentheses seems to serve two distinct purposes. One, it serves to notify the reader of a tangential thought as in “I should point out.” Second, it serves to reference something he is talking about but not directly stating, in this case “the so-called Jeffreys prior”; the use of the words so-called is also interesting here as it seems to indicate opinion rather than absolute fact. Lastly, there is the issue of italics usage; here it appears to create emphasis on a particular thought, to, in essence, notify the reader that a concept is being mentioned that is important and to which attention ought to be paid. There is also something to be said about his choice to analyze his own research and rather meticulously at that. He, like most good scientists, is allowing for peer reviewers to pick apart his argument and, ultimately, to reaffirm or reject what is being posited. Ultimately, the explanation of his analysis helps to orient the reader to his thought process.
In another post, “Cuts”, Jaffe seems to stay true to his structure while adding some distinct features.

I presume that anyone reading this blog knows that today is the day when the great unwashed masses of UK astronomers heard about our financial fate from the STFC, the small arm of the UK government responsible for Astrophysics, Particle Physics and Nuclear Physics…For various reasons, some clear and others manifestly not, STFC is something like 70 million in the red….I was selfishly relieved to see that our work with the Planck surveyor satellite is rated “alpha 5” …..However, STFC has “requested” (not sure what that means in this context) that even these projects reduce their cost…The cuts (a.k.a. “managed withdrawal”) include…..I’ve got 11 browser tabs open just to keep myself up to date…

This is followed by an extensive list of the tabs open. It appears to me to be a great way to link and create a community of fellow interested bloggers and individuals scanning the information. In this particular post, there are several differences to the post previously. For one, he acknowledges his presumption that his audience is well versed in his field. Second, use of commas clearly indicate he nature of specific diction as in “reasons, some clear and others manifestly not,…” Third, he uses “a.k.a.” and purposefully puts quotes around “managed withdrawal” to indicate someone else’s terminology and his attention to that fact. Finally, he puts a degree of himself, his perceived character into the blog “ I was selfishly relieved..” The fact that he admits to a certain emotional state is a nice tool, in my opinion, to draw readership in by appealing to their like emotion.

He includes, which I found extremely fascinating a book review in one of his posts, “Physics vs Poetry”, of Ian McEwan’s “Physics vs Poetry: New Fiction by Ian McEwan” in which he shares, in contrast to previous posts, a great deal of opinion.

What makes McEwan’s portrayal so unappealing is the backhandedness of the compliment behind it: yes, he’s smarter than everyone around him. But somehow even he doesn’t quite get the poetry, even if that’s almost a distinction that doesn’t make much of a difference.