“Science is often hard to read. Most people assume that its difficulties are born out of necessity, out of the extreme complexity of scientific concepts, data and analysis. We argue here that complexity of thought need not lead to impenetrability of expression; we demonstrate a number of rhetorical principles that can produce clarity in communication without oversimplifying scientific issues. The results are substantive, not merely cosmetic: Improving the quality of writing actually improves the quality of thought. ” Gopen & Swan —The Science of Scientific Writing (American Scientist)
A 1990 classic, republished by research.att.com
Similar:
That 'Useless' Liberal Arts Degree Has Become Tech's Hottest Ticket
What kind of boss hires a thwarted actre...
Academia
Letter to the editor: Setting record straight on Seton Hill newspaper
Here's my letter responding to an recent...
Academia
The grudging emergence of American journalism's classic editorial: New details about ''Is ...
"Is There A Santa Claus?" was published ...
History
Earth With Rings
Sure, Saturn's rings are cool, but the E...
Aesthetics
Don't Be Cruel
[M]angled syntax, disordered thinking, a...
Academia
Stapler jam during a midterm exam.
My years of watching MacGyver definitely...
Academia

