“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:
Unvaccinated dad records days of regret in hospital -- and makes heartbreaking request for...
Between difficult breaths of supplementa...
Current_Events
Name-calling and ad hominem attacks don't provide anyone with reasons to change their mind...
Academia
The "Best" E-mail Signature Is Actually the Worst
I have no particular opinion about how t...
Business
So Long Blogging. Hello—Yep, We're Going to Say It—Plogging
I still blog, because I want control ove...
Business
SAT essay section: Problems with grading, instruction, and prompts.
In my freshman writing courses I work ha...
Academia
Breaking up with your favorite racist childhood classic books
A good article analyzes the strong cultu...
Books


