How not to write about complexity in science

Having graded over 130 student essays this past fall, I saw a certain word pop up again and again:

complex.

“Earthquakes are a complex problem.”

“Titan has a complex methane distribution over the Tropics.”

“To pin down the many complexities and feedbacks involved in jet stream blocking may prove to be difficult.”

“Governments and international research bodies alike must put money into funding research projects in the polar regions in order to heighten our understanding of these complex geological areas.”

These four examples are weak sentences. Saying that the issues are complex doesn’t tell me anything.

• For example, what about earthquakes makes it a complex problem? Is it that they cannot be predicted? Is it that much of the structure of the fault lies buried, and so only indirect means can be used to understand them?
• Rather than saying that Titan has a complex methane distribution, describe what this distribution looks like with height. Show a graph to illustrate the complexity of the distribution.
• Although we may not totally understand what causes and maintains blocking patterns in the atmosphere, it is a tractable problem, and the author has given us no insight into why there are “complexities” (whatever they are) that prevent us from understanding their mechanisms.
• In the last example, the word “complex” seems to be just thrown out there, to add importance to what is being said. It’s a weak argument, like coming out to support motherhood.

I’m not saying that all uses of the word complex be banned from scientific writing. Far from it, in fact, there are even degree programs in Complexity Science, studying complex systems that are composed of many parts. But there, the term is well defined and used for a specific meaning.

I don’t believe it is our job as scientists to say something is complex. I believe it is our job to make order out of the complexity that we don’t understand.

(Image from chewychunks.wordpress.com)