“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:
Classroom Vignette: MLA Style
Student (shouldering backpack and headin...
Academia
Computers and Writing workshop on Inform 7. (Happening now. In an asynchronous way.)
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLa8nP...
Academia
What do students need to know about rhetoric?
I love giving the "what is rhetoric" lec...
Academia
Learn to code? No: Learn a real language
I don't see learning to code as a substi...
Culture
Split Infinitives in English: Not Actually Wrong, But Unwise
The rule against split infinitives is a ...
Culture
Le règne des robots
Écrite en 1920 et jouée pour la première...
Cyberculture


