[LINK] IFIP Digital Library

Glen Turner gdt at gdt.id.au
Thu Aug 21 03:19:10 AEST 2008


[Trying again, with hopefully decent line wrapping]

> 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





More information about the Link mailing list