English in technology and science

[babthrower]

I hope you will believe this, because it's true. Recently on science programs on television I have heard these statements: (1) (The subject is glass.) "Most glasses aremade of silica which is the main ingredient of most glasses, bar none." (2) (The subject is a team effort on a project.) "Both of them individually wouldn't have had the combined effect." Do you know where your research dollars are tonight? Please comment.

[Waterwolf]

Well, they're amusing, but I wouldn't say that these statements are cast-iron proof of the declining quality of scientists. For a start, were they made by professional scientists or the presenters/narrators of these programmes? Were they scripted or spontaneous? Anyone can repeat themselves in free-flowing speech, which would explain statement (1). And (2) is not necessarily stating the obvious: it seems perfectly plausible to me that two people might achieve as much individually than they could together, so what's wrong with saying that in this case, they didn't?

[incitatus]

whats wrong with statement two is the word combined: if it said "They wouldnt have had the same effect" then it would be fine. If we are talking "research dollars" rather than "research pounds" you have to expect the english to b somewhat battered. But then again, science programs are nomally presented by people with media studies qualifications, who do not understand what they are talking about. I long ago stopped watching things like Tomorrows World because it irritates me too much. They always miss the point and often have so many errors included in the presentation that it actually damages public awareness of science.n That said, remember scientists are not paid to be communicators, thats advertising executives. When I communicate with colleagues I do so in a way that is very strictly laid out in technical language. This is necessary but means that it becomes impenetrable to the lay reader. When we then try to communicate this to non-specialist sources scientists tend to fall down on the english front. Which is why we often employ PR people to do college presentations. Be fair: in Britain at least a typical scientist of my generation wold last have studied english as a language at the age of 16. Mind you compare our knowledge of english with an english graduates knowledge of science. I dont think we do too badly.

[babthrower]

Well, you two have done a good job of defending the luckless perpetrators. Waterwolf, the statements were made by the researchers/practitioners themselves, spontaneously and on camera. I guess I would have wanted (1) to say instead, 'All glasses are made of silica', because the bite did go on to explain the use of additives to make distinctive glasses, and (2) to say 'The team produced more than the workers individually could have done', or some such. Incitatus, your answer reminds me of the mess the media made (alliteration incidental) of the so-called 'life on Mars' discovery made a few years ago from studies of antarctic meteorites. But I have to say, nevertheless, that the statements quoted in my original post seem to show the lack of a certain economy and clarity which I would wish to see in scientists/technologists.

[Waterwolf]

Just to pick up on something Incitatus said, I don't think it's really fair English and science graduates in that way. Advanced study of English as an academic subject teaches you about things like linguistics and critical theory; communication skills can (and should) be developed reagrdless of what you study, which is something similar to Incitatus's main point. I guess all I'm saying is that he's not comparing like with like.

[Waterwolf]

Oops! I meant to say 'to compare English and science graduates'.

[incitatus]

What Im saying is that you employ scientists to do science, and to communicate effectively with other scientists. You employ PR people to do tv. The skills required to present to a specialisst and non-specialist audience are vastly different. And I do not accept that comparing english and science graduates is unfair. Both are specialist subjects, and neither, at an advanced level, teach about presentation to non-specialist audiences. The difference one normally finds between science and arts specialists (leaving english to one side here, im not singling them out) is that scientists will normally know something of the arts, or at least be embarassed when they dont know enough. My experience of conversations with artists is that they are proud of knowing no science....Arg , that was a bigotted statement based on a very limited sample group. So probably indefensible.

[babthrower]

Incitatus, this is not a burning issue with me. I do understand what you are saying. Still, I'm afraid I can't agree. Take the example, "Most glasses are made of silica which is the main ingredient of most glasses, bar none." This could be simply expressed: All glasses are made of silica." (The segment included information about how glass is modified by the addition of other materials.) Not only is it simpler, but avoids the contradiction 'most glasses' and 'bar none'. 'Bar none' means exclude none, which implies 'all glasses'. You do not have to study English beyond elementary school to write simply and clearly. To compose the sentence 'All glasses..." above does not require advanced studies in English. What troubles me is the contradiction and inefficiency of the of the original statement. All scientists are trained to avoid both contradiction and inefficiency.