“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:
12 Mistakes Nearly Everyone Who Writes About Grammar Mistakes Makes
Descriptive grammarians rejoice.
Formal...
Culture
Rereading “Writing to Learn”
Rereading “Writing to Learn,” William Zi...
Academia
'Robot Journalist' Out-Writes Human Sports Reporter
Sports journalism is full of colorful fi...
Games
Soldiers and Sailors Memorial and Museum
Another visit to Pittsburgh with my his...
Culture
Emily Short's advice on writing great game protagonists
At GDC 2015, noted interactive fiction g...
Cyberculture
I accidentally started a Wikipedia hoax
Hoaxes roam the Information Superhighway...
Books


