"To our surprise"
scholar.google.com
scholar.google.com
I have no idea if this is surprising or not.
Somewhat more surprising is that the query "italian mad scientist" has 4 results in Google Scholar. Those are all due to the SCIGen fake scientific paper generator, which sometimes outputs this phrase: https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/
Surprisingly, when I do the same searches as you, I don't get anywhere near the same numbers.
I think you're right; it's my impression that passive voice has been the traditional style for scientific papers. However, the winds of change have been blowing for the last 15 or 20 years. Editors of most scientific journals now recommend using active voice wherever possible.
I frequently fight with my collaborators over this. In a nutshell I think the passive voice style of science writing is unclear, and dishonest in that it pretends the researcher was not involved in the research.
Check out p12 and p13 here: https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/events/professional-d...
and: http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus/2007/01/active_is_better_th...
I'd be pissed at a prof for having such rigid overgeneralized rules.
For example in AI if you read the papers coming from the best labs the writing tends to be on the point, short sentences, almost informal-sounding, actually someone telling you what and why they did and what they found. Not merely conforming to arbitrary rules set up by bitter mediocre "scholars".
But yes, people who are afraid they have nothing to say try to hide it behind long sentences with incomprehensible nested structures and overjargonized vocabulary. Plus equations that are designed to impress rather than enlighten.
Interesting, I don't think I've seen any discussion before about clear, unpretentious presentation of math. I'll have to consciously evaluate this better as I read papers.
Personally I think mathematical clarity is tougher to evaluate because I would not be confident enough to always know if it's the author or just me.
Unnecessary equations often mean "this is totally a serious, rigorous paper, we do admirable and hard technical work here and deserve respect!".
> We investigated X
(Who's we?)
and
> From equation (1.2.3) we see that,
(Who is "we"? The author? The author and other readers who are smarter than me? It cannot possibly be "the author and I" because I don't "see that" at all.)
Also, your second "we" isn't even that, I think that's just good old-fashioned generic pronoun (because English normally doesn't allow a sentence without a subject). Basically the same as in sentences like:
> In Elbonia you are not allowed to drive after dark.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen “we” used as an indefinite pronoun. It’s usually “one”, “you”, or “they”, depending on formality and context.
In this context, it seems obvious to me that it stands for the author(s) and the reader, in a (maybe misguided) attempt to reduce the distance between them and involve the reader in the narrative.
Thank you for putting it so succinctly, this is exactly what I meant to say: When I'm reading a scientific paper, I don't want to be involved in the narrative. Don't speak to me; let the facts speak for themselves.
I would tend to prefer “we can see” (or “we can deduce”, or something to that effect) rather than “we see”. In the first case, it’s a statement that it is possible for you to see it too, if you think about it for a while. As you say, the latter is a statement of fact that is often wrong and can come across as condescending.
What do you mean you "can hear" the loud music coming from the neighbor's flat? Do you in fact hear it or do you just have the ability to hear it and can also switch it off or something? It's a quirk of English that I just had to memorize.
You can hear it, if you're otherwise silent and focus on the sound.
When describing an experimental method, it literally does not matter if a Nobel laureate, fresh-faced undergrad, robot, or zombie added the reagent. The point is that it was added, and so the passive voice works fine.
However, perhaps it is important that the reader understands how carefully patients were evaluated, rather than the fact that they were evaluated at all. Then, you might choose the active voice and write "A panel of 17 experts carefully evaluated each patient" instead of "patients were evaluated by 17 experts."
I recommended to authors that they should use active voice because it usually made it easier to explicitly identify the intended actors and avoid ambiguity about who should do what. E.g. a bid author should prefer "$COMPANY will do X" rather than "X will be done" because it avoids confusion over whether X is a $COMPANY or $CUSTOMER responsibility. Obviously authors could still write "X will be done by $COMPANY" but I found that they would often forget to identify the actor if they chose passive voice.
Unfortunately, in English, if you want to make the patient the topic of the sentence you are forced to use the passive voice, because there is no marker for the direct object of a verb, and then the sentence becomes less readable, because in English the passive voice is constructed with auxiliary verbs, so it is more complex than the active voice.
These are defects of the English language, so the recommendation to avoid the passive voice is specific to English and also to a few other modern European languages, which have also lost the features that enable a free order of the words.
In an ideal language, it should be possible to use a standard order of the words to express their syntactic roles without additional words, but there should also exist some optional prepositions or postpositions marking each possible syntactic role, to enable an arbitrary order of the words when desired.
In such a language you could choose freely the topic of a sentence without being constrained because some choices are awkward, like when using the English passive voice.
Most ancient languages, including most ancient Indo-European languages, like Latin or Ancient Greek, allowed a free order of the words, because there were markers for each syntactic role, like agent, patient, instrument, beneficiary and so on (i.e. the so-called cases).
Nevertheless, at the stage where the old Indo-European languages became attested in writing, they had a very serious defect. Even if the so-called case terminations of the words were originally a small set of post-positions corresponding to the syntactic roles, due to various phonetic evolutions conditioned by the adjacent sounds present in words, the original small set of markers had diverged into a very large set of word terminations with many distinct variants for each syntactic role, the so-called word declensions.
Because remembering such a large set of word terminations became too difficult, most modern European languages have abandoned the old declensions. Some languages use enough prepositions, possibly together with some remnants of the old case terminations, to allow a free order of the words.
English however, depends a lot on the standard order of the words to convey their syntactic roles and it has only limited means of expression for supporting a different word order.
While in the Indo-European languages the too irregular word declensions could not persist, there are other language families with a much more regular structure for the syntactic role markers, while still having enough markers to allow a free word order.
It is weird that the European linguists of the previous centuries considered the regular languages (the so-called agglutinative languages or isolant languages) as "primitive" while considering the "flexionar" classic Indo-European languages as "superior" and "advanced".
In fact even if the flexionar classic Indo-European languages evolved from some older agglutinative language, their irregular declensions were a serious defect and not a sign of progress.
Unfortunately, because the language changes have always been done mostly by the less educated people, without having any kind of grand plan of how to best improve the language, the necessary simplifications of the language have also been frequently accompanied by a loss of expressiveness, like in English.
I am going to lookup what you wrote about the evolution and use of active voice in English - something I always wondered about.
Stylish Academic Writing by Helen Sword is a good book on the subject.
Academic writing is needlessly dense for all kinds of reasons other than passive voice though.
This seemed to be quite needed for students to get up to speed. I was from Finland, where this subject was brought up before uni.
For what it's worth, I remember my supervisor calling bullshit on my then dense and overly academic writing and I thank them for it. It was a process of un-learning bad patterns or preconcieved notions about the writing process.
Recommend.
This is also "just" learning by doing. There is some back-and-forth with PhD students who help with the structure, but there's no explicit instruction.
In the context where I taught, most students coming into the PhD program had no training in writing whatsoever. The first round of essays that people turned in were typically very poorly written. Most folks really needed the training in my view.
I think it's actually better to seek writing advice on the Internet (not from randos, but if you're cut out for a PhD you should be able to tell apart crap advice from good ones.) I'm pretty sure it's better than whatever my university could offer as a course.
And just as everywhere, 90% of everything is crap. Perhaps more than 90% of papers are crap and 90% of academics have nothing to say and write terribly to hide it.
Hmmm I don't think that's the case at all – if at all, active voice is less clear and "sloppy". (See the examples I mentioned here[0].) But maybe we interpret the term "clarify" in different ways?
You're right in terms of what I meant by "clarify", which was more about writing that looking less "sloppy". The examples I think about aren't ones where the investigators are referring to themselves by "We" but where you're writing a paper about molecules interacting with each other. So something like "A activates B, which in turn inactivates C" reads more smoothly than any of its passive-voice counterparts.
Yes, because there is a clear subject and the fact that one thing activates another is important (at least in scientific papers, causality is kind of the point). Using the passive voice in this case is clumsy and awkward. On the other hand, there are legitimate cases for the passive voice when the subject is unclear/unknown/unimportant. Forcing the active voice then results in the overuse of meaningless pronouns or vague words just because there needs to be a subject. Good writing is using the right construct, which depends on context.
The passive voice is preferred.
How would you describe this difference, otherwise?
"...was conducted" suggests no information about the conductor. It could be the author, and in the specific context of an academic paper it implies the author, but it could just as well be anyone else on Earth especially outside of this context.
"Surprisingly" (or "the results were a surprise," etc.), on the other hand, doesn't leave anything to the imagination. I can't think of a way this word could potentially mean that another party but the author was surprised.
Passive voice could hide the party responsible for surprising someone (active "Alice surprised Bob" becomes passive "Bob was surprised"), but in the original scenario, the party causing the surprise (the subject, which could be hidden by passive voice), is the experiment. The surprised party is the direct object, not the subject... passive voice is not a term to describe hiding the direct object; that's transitive versus intransitive.
My question was: If we prefer not to use the word 'passive' to describe this difference, what should it be called instead?
To an agent: "To our surprise, we found them. To our surprise, group A was found by us first."
To a patient: "To our surprise, they found us. To our surprise, we were found by group A."
To neither: "To our surprise, group A found group B. To our surprise, group B was found by group A."
I suppose "to our surprise" is explicit about whose expectations weren't met in a way that "surprisingly" is not. But in a first-person narrative, I imagine most readers would understand "surprisingly" to mean "to my/our surprise."
There is an intended agent experiencing surprise, and we might under some circumstances agree that we know who the agent is (just as we expect that "the experiment was conducted" by the author as researcher).
But, technically, the agent is obscured and not written, so we can't be completely certain about the writer's intent. Maybe Rosalind Franklin conducted the experiment: we are only led to infer that the author was responsible.
Personally, I generally understand "Surprisingly," to mean "An attentive reader should now be surprised that...".
There's an expectation of general surprise relative to an earlier claim in the text; the writer assumes the reader will be surprised (whether or not the writer was truthfully surprised). I find myself annoyed by this style, whenever I am unsurprised.
What do you mean by "intended agent"? "Agent" has a common definition in linguistics, and an agent is only an agent in the context of a verb, not an overarching narrative. The same referent can be an agent in one sentence but not the next: "We hid. To our surprise we were found by group A." "Group A" is the only agent in the second sentence.
There may be other definitions of "agent" in other contexts, but we're talking about grammatical voice here.
The passive voice is quite simple: the grammatical subject is filled by the patient or theme of a clause, not e.g. the agent. There are many use cases for the passive voice apart from obfuscation, and obfuscation is hardly a necessary result.
I might call "surprisingly" in your interpretation a weasel word in the broad sense. The inference is that the author wants the reader to take up an attitude but is not being forthright about it.
Of course some passive clauses may be weaselly in their own right, but the passive voice is not weaselly by definition.
The Wikipedia definition of English passive voice is more instructive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_passive_voice .
The term distinguishes between sentences where the semantic agent is the syntactic subject, and those where it is the object.
For example: "Bob threw a ball at Suzie" (active, Bob is the syntactic subject) vs. "A ball was thrown at Suzie by Bob" (passive, Bob is the object of a preposition and "a ball" is the subject).
Active: To our surprise, they had left the door open.
Passive: To our surprise, the door had been left open.
It’s an ungenerous interpretation to suggest that people using “Surprisingly,” are immodest/imprecise/etc.. I could as easily hold the interpretation that “To our surprise…,” is the author trading my time in an attempt to get himself some goodwill from readers. However, that would be equally ungenerous.
The modesty here is about saying "We're not sure if this is generally surprising for everyone, but we were surprised". "Surprisingly" is a bit less conservative to me, its more of a "We think this is generally surprising for the field". I would personally use it only if I knew something has already surprised multiple research groups
This is an odd view of communication. It works for whole stories, e.g. you can decouple Heinlein from his books and claim that The Moon is a Harsh Mistress primarily says something other than Heinlein actually had in mind, artistically speaking, but it's a very odd stance for single words. Communication is two-way, it has everything to do with both the speaker and listener. Words don't have any meaning except for what the speaker and listener assign to them. There is no "what the author actually said", there is only what they intended to say (and how it was interpreted).
In the role of listener/reader, your whole job is to figure out what the author intended. Otherwise I'm not sure we agree on what reading even is.
An author’s intention cannot be inferred without additional context. So no, the author’s intention per se does not matter in the context of this conversation. Extending that to mean it never matters isn’t at all what I said.
Surprise isn't an objective fact. It's a statement of emotion or subjective experience or whatever you'd like to call it. It is often a consequence of an objective difference between an expectation and a result. (An expectation can be subjective, but whether someone holds that expectation is either true or false.) But surprise isn't that objective difference, it's the subjective response.
So if I say, "Surprisingly, the sun rose today," absent other context it means I find it surprising that the sun rose today. It doesn't mean, "Everyone should find it surprising that the sun rose today." For that, I would need to add more context or you would need to bring in some assumptions that aren't supported by my statement. So, this is equivalent to "To my surprise, the sun rose today."
In a thread where others explain how to them, they have different meanings. It is quite obviously an opinion.
Are you honestly not aware that your behavioural data is used to target specific search results?
“To our surprise” means only that you were surprised by it. It’s more humble because it allows for a reader to be smarter/wiser and not be surprised. “I thought Frodo was going to die at the end of the Return of the King, but to my surprise he did not.” “Surprisingly” wouldn’t be correct here since not everyone would have made that prediction.
We are already domain experts on the research edge for whatever topic, and writing to our peers. What we know is already not obvious to non-experts. For something to be surprising to the domain experts too, that's where the novelty points start, and why we are taking time to write/read. So, clever!
There can be a difference between results and consensus expectation, but there can also be a difference between results and personal expectation (e.g., results do not support hypothesis). In the absence of explicitly calling out who holds the expectation, there is either context that makes it clear (e.g., the audience is experts in the field and the expectations are widely held) or the use is referring to the author’s own surprise.
Simply claiming they are not equivalent is not correct. They are equivalent in the absence of context. It is only when context is considered (and just being a scholarly article isn’t necessarily enough context) that they might be considered non-equivalent.
"We believed this surprising thing might be true. To our surprise, nothing unusual happened."
What's generally surprising is not the same as what is surprising given the researchers' prior expectations. (What is surprising also changes over time, as a result of those experiments!)
...whereas passive voice is widely endorsed.
I remember seeing the first screen full of waffle and one fragment standing out clearly
herbaceous border disputesA concept familiar to anybody with a neighbor who refuses to do anything about their blackberry infestation.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22Disclosure%20I%20work%22&sort=byDate&type=comment
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22Disclaimer%20I%20work%22&sort=byDate&type=commentBut in general, I think it's just that certain tech companies are big -- so they get discussed a lot on HN, and also employ a lot of HN users, thus requiring more disclosures.
Just so we're clear, this is not actually "required". It's a combination of bragging rights, post credibility boost and (rarely) actual, official, authorized communication from the company.
Also, if you _don't_ disclose, there's a non-zero chance someone goes through your post history and finds you work at the company of interest, and what follows could be an accusation of shilling and attempting to deceive people by not making the connection apparent. Just as with a journalist, putting your biases upfront allows you and the reader to have a chance at a trustworthy dialogue.
Disclaimer: it would indeed be silly in this comment
A disclaimer denies responsibility. So if you're including a disclaimer that you work for Google, you're essentially saying that you take no responsibility for the consequences of your comment because of your employer.
There is also the scientific article search of the Internet Archive if you are looking for another one to search through:
> to our surprise, only one nonlinear method was superior to Salzer summation, namely the Wynn rho algorithm
GASP!
“NSERC had temporarily suspended our funding so if you have any questions, I’ll be pulling double shifts at Tim Horton’s.”
"according to my mom" - 400 results
"according to my dad" - 364 results
Nice to see that nearly double of the data doesn't come from the researcher's parents.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22it+has+not+escaped+o...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22thoroughly+debunked%...
> Although the pristine myth has been thoroughly debunked, too many biodiversity researchers fail to incorporate historical ecology into their analyses.
> Overall, we reject the notion that “the pristine myth has been thoroughly debunked” by archeological evidence, and suggest that the environmental impacts of historical peoples occurred along gradients[...]
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22to+our+excitement%22
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21&q=“co...
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=unexpectedly
"astonishingly"
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22a...
https://arxiv.org/search/?query=pedagogical+introduction&sea...
Many results are still to advanced but still this gives me insight into a lot of new topics.
> To our surprise, except from those applications in > graphics itself, GPU finds its applications in general > purpose computations in other fields, and it comes up as a > hot topic for research in recent 2 - 3 years.
I don't see how this was very surprising even in 2004. A GPU accelerates regularly-parallel computation where bandwidth is more important than latency.
On the other hand, you had to think in terms of "shaders", which is not very intuitive, and tooling was barely existent, so maybe it was a bit surprising.
Although that Know Your Meme article focuses on politics, science has always been about professional mistake-making.
"Sci Hub" is also popular in the science community. This is a shadow library that "collects" articles from other publishers websites and makes them available free of charge. Maybe the most important feature though is that it has a single search field and it does not matter where the article was initially published at.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=inti...
> Attwell, D., & Laughlin, S. B. (2001). An energy budget for signaling in the grey matter of the brian. Journal of cerebral blood flow metabolism, 21(10), 1133-1145
Poor Brian!
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22b...
It is happening so often these days that I get more and more frustrated by it...
Trying to be precise in language allows you to communicate an idea the most effective way, imo, and at the end of the day that's you're goal. At least it should be in technical writing. If the reader has to pause when they see "codes" instead of "code" because it's just a bit off then that is a tiny failing in your communication.
Definitely not the end of the world, definitely not something to be an asshole about, but it is something I would maybe politely correct if I knew the person well enough.
Also don't take this for me saying I'm perfect in my written communication. I still don't know how to use commas and I've had them explained to me from all grammatical standpoints multiple times. Trying is all you can do.
I had thought "a code" and then "codes" may have come down from the punch card era of programming where as you said it would be more of single routine for a specific computation which I guess then would have filtered down into scientific computing as programming evolved through fortran and others and now it seems it's all merging back together.
Conservative to the bone I guess.
I would argue this is similar to the difference between accent vs pronunciation. People often conflate the two as similar. But you having a different accent makes your speech beautiful. Whereas you having a different pronunciation makes your speech unintelligible.
At least these are "codes" not "cods", as I've seen written in a project I worked with. Real mistake by a French programmer, not a typo. Reasoning: programme->program so code->cod. In French there is no difference in pronunciation, and spell check didn't catch it. This one is obvious and funny, but you can get some weird English when you apply foreign rules to it.