Comments on: We Know the Answer! http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:57:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: æ¡‘æž—å¿— » 科技写作的一些潜规则 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28774 æ¡‘æž—å¿— » 科技写作的一些潜规则 Fri, 25 May 2007 20:29:02 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28774 [...] CosmicVariance 那儿有个有趣（而ä¸"我也能看懂:D）的讨论：为什么科技写作时一般ç"¨è¢«åŠ¨è¯­æ€ï¼Ÿå¦å¤–，为啥要避å...å•æ•°ç¬¬ä¸€äººç§°ï¼Ÿå°±æ˜¯ç"¨"我们"而不是"我"，即使文章的作è€...只有一个人。 [...] […] CosmicVariance 那儿有个有趣（而且我也能看懂:D）的讨论：为什么科技写作时一般用被动语态？另外，为啥要避免单数第一人称？就是用”我们”而不是”我”，即使文章的作者只有一个人。 […]

]]> By: PK http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28773 PK Thu, 24 May 2007 08:08:57 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28773 I think it is perfectly fine to use the passive voice when the acting agent is irrelevant to the point you try to make. For example, it is much better to say "The samples were cleaned with chloroform" than "Joe Blogs cleaned the samples with chloroform". Who cares whether it was Blogs or Smith? I also think that the passive voice often acts as glue that keeps a piece of writing together. Instead of all active sentences each demanding the attention of the reader, passive sentences are resting points. But of course you do not want a text completely composed of resting points. I think it is perfectly fine to use the passive voice when the acting agent is irrelevant to the point you try to make. For example, it is much better to say “The samples were cleaned with chloroform” than “Joe Blogs cleaned the samples with chloroform”. Who cares whether it was Blogs or Smith?

I also think that the passive voice often acts as glue that keeps a piece of writing together. Instead of all active sentences each demanding the attention of the reader, passive sentences are resting points. But of course you do not want a text completely composed of resting points.

]]> By: Michael D http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28771 Michael D Thu, 24 May 2007 04:16:45 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28771 And to Peter's posts from Language Log, here's another example of where the demand for use of active voice, doesn't work out all that well. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004456.html m And to Peter’s posts from Language Log, here’s another example of where the demand for use of active voice, doesn’t work out all that well.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004456.html

m

]]> By: adam http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28802 adam Thu, 24 May 2007 01:00:31 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28802 I don't think that most referee are looking for a reason to refuse a piece, Haelfix. It seems to me to be more likely that they either have an opinion as to the correct style, or possibly are looking at journal guidelines (if such are available). I don’t think that most referee are looking for a reason to refuse a piece, Haelfix. It seems to me to be more likely that they either have an opinion as to the correct style, or possibly are looking at journal guidelines (if such are available).

]]> By: Haelfix http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28779 Haelfix Wed, 23 May 2007 23:37:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28779 In my experience, if a referree returns a paper admonishing this sort of thing, it usually means he hates the paper but can't find sufficient reasons to reject it. In other words, hes just being snooty. In practise this just means conforming so that they aren't given that chance. I've never understood why the 'royal we' (which is what it sounds like most of the time) has to be used in science writing, it strikes me as archaic and a tradition that confuses things rather than elucidates them. In fact, i'd love to see more papers where there is explicit disagreement between co authors. (eg Witten things that this 2 form has to be closed, but Vafa disagrees). 'We' tend to learn more from disagreement in Science than pure consensus, even if its regarding unimportant technical details. In my experience, if a referree returns a paper admonishing this sort of thing, it usually means he hates the paper but can’t find sufficient reasons to reject it. In other words, hes just being snooty. In practise this just means conforming so that they aren’t given that chance.

I’ve never understood why the ‘royal we’ (which is what it sounds like most of the time) has to be used in science writing, it strikes me as archaic and a tradition that confuses things rather than elucidates them.

In fact, i’d love to see more papers where there is explicit disagreement between co authors. (eg Witten things that this 2 form has to be closed, but Vafa disagrees). ‘We’ tend to learn more from disagreement in Science than pure consensus, even if its regarding unimportant technical details.

]]> By: Count Iblis http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28781 Count Iblis Wed, 23 May 2007 23:31:15 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28781 A referee of a single authored paper I wrote some time ago actually consistently referred to me as "the authors" in the report :) A referee of a single authored paper I wrote some time ago actually consistently referred to me as “the authors” in the report :)

]]> By: Arun http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28780 Arun Wed, 23 May 2007 23:27:29 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28780 "Mistakes were made." “Mistakes were made.”

]]> By: adam http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28809 adam Wed, 23 May 2007 20:35:29 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28809 PK #43: It's just a personal thing, I guess. I don't mind the pedagogical 'we' and I imagine that my preferences probably have no logical basis. PK #43: It’s just a personal thing, I guess. I don’t mind the pedagogical ‘we’ and I imagine that my preferences probably have no logical basis.

]]> By: Peter Erwin http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28783 Peter Erwin Wed, 23 May 2007 18:39:55 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28783 Jason @ 41: I suspect we're talking about slightly different things. If you could actually <i>remove</i> the I-containing sentences you refer to without damaging the content or the clarity, then they were arguably superfluous and deserved to be removed. (Maybe the resulting text is shorter but less entertaining now; maybe it's more concise and readable.) The fact that they used the first person is irrelevant, unless there was something about your particular writing style that made irrelevant sentences more likely to be first-person... The issue that Chad and Sean are referring to is not removing first-person sentences -- at least not if they contain important information -- but the idea that they must be rewritten so that "I" (or "we" even if it's a multi-author paper) never appears. For example, <a href="http://asa.aip.org/honolulu/honolulu.html" rel="nofollow">this set of instructions</a> on preparing abstracts for meetings of the Acoustical Society of America contains the following advice: <blockquote>Use passives instead of pronouns "I" and "we," e.g., "It was noted" instead of "We noted."</blockquote> which in this case makes things slightly wordier, the opposite of what you want for an abstract... Jason @ 41: I suspect we’re talking about slightly different things. If you could actually remove the I-containing sentences you refer to without damaging the content or the clarity, then they were arguably superfluous and deserved to be removed. (Maybe the resulting text is shorter but less entertaining now; maybe it’s more concise and readable.) The fact that they used the first person is irrelevant, unless there was something about your particular writing style that made irrelevant sentences more likely to be first-person…

The issue that Chad and Sean are referring to is not removing first-person sentences — at least not if they contain important information — but the idea that they must be rewritten so that “I” (or “we” even if it’s a multi-author paper) never appears. For example, this set of instructions on preparing abstracts for meetings of the Acoustical Society of America contains the following advice:

Use passives instead of pronouns “I” and “we,” e.g., “It was noted” instead of “We noted.”

which in this case makes things slightly wordier, the opposite of what you want for an abstract…

]]> By: PK http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28811 PK Wed, 23 May 2007 18:13:22 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/05/22/we-know-the-answer/#comment-28811 why, adam? why, adam?

]]>