[LINK] IFIP Digital Library

[Glen Turner]

On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 10:32 +1000, Stephen Wilson wrote:

> Call me old fashioned, but is there any solid research as yet that shows 
> there is a better way of rigorously conveying difficult, complex 
> concepts than via carefully written text?

Try a simple experiment:
 - Explain the structure, replication and transcription of DNA using
only
   text.
 - Now explain it again, using text and a 3D model, as used in the
initial
   explanation of the structure of DNA. [1]
 - Now explain it again, using a visualisation -- a 3D model with
movement.

Also note Figure 2 in [1] explaining the relationship between the X-ray
diffraction pattern of DNA (which was observed to follow a Bessel
function)
and the proposed DNA structure (which they argue would necessarily
generate
a X-ray diffraction pattern following a Bessel function). The argument
in
the text is brief and the full argument is left to the diagram -- which
is
the reverse of your claim that text is necessarily the superior medium
for
rigour.

I humbly submit the above rather famous example (as representative of
many
other possible examples) to support the counter-argument that there are
fields
of science where text is inferior in explanatory power and in rigour.

I speculate that one of the reasons for Watson and Crick's success was
their extensive use of chemical models (an early use of what we would
now
call "visualisation technology") and their competitors' contempt for
the use of models.

  [1] Watson JD & Crick FHC
      "A structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid"
      in Nature, vol.171, no.4356, pp.737, 1953-04-25.
      http://www.nature.com/nature/dna50/watsoncrick.pdf