“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:
What Does the Demise of Cursive Mean?
Are you aware that our children aren't b...
Culture
R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) Full Play (via Zoom)
All 3 acts and the epilogue to R.U.R. (R...
Books
York Plays 2025: Five cameras, adding up to ~100 hours of footage.
Five cameras, adding up to ~100 hours of...
Academia
Google 1407
Philipp Lenssen and I had a bit of fun i...
Aesthetics
Chipping away at Pygmalion and Galatea
Pygmalion is a legendary sculptor (whose...
Art
i trained an ai chatbot on my childhood journal entries - so that i could engage in real-t...
I kept a journal from Feb 3 1983 (the da...
Culture


