-----Original Message-----
of science (e.g. some aspects of genetic engineering), but to communicate
effectively with the public we must be able to understand their less
scientific view of the world. Perhaps a greater appreciation of art by the
-----End Quoted (and cut) Message-----
I don't think the target was the arts so much as the language. And I at
least was genuinely interested in getting a clarification of what the
message meant.
Before we can "understand their less scientific view of the world" we have
to understand what they are saying. That is what the response was about.
Without clarity of expression you end up with hand waving and people
misunderstanding one another.
You would have had exactly the same response had you come in here and
started talking about oxidation levels and electron spin pairing in
rare-earth high temperature superconductors. And quite rightly.
Lest anyone think that only scientists get upset by so called "Art
Bollocks", which we are probably not talking about here, they should read
the latest issue of, I think, Art Review. There was an extract in The
Guardian on Saturday. It is a wonderful account of how to write the
aforementioned genre of art criticism. It made me think seriously about
unleashing the old bulls**t detector on some of the science bollocks that is
all to common.
MK
_______________________________________________________________________
Michael Kenward / Phone: +44 (0)1444 400568 Fax: 401064
/
Science Writer & Stuff / Genetically modified words for sale
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|