eerie oranges and peckish shifts

Esperam-se dias de muito frio até à próxima quarta-feira. A Protecção Civil alerta para o rápido abaixamento das temperaturas previsto para os próximos dias, fenómeno que será particularmente acentuado durante a noite.

De onde se espera que lá para o Verão venha o aumentamento da temperatura!!

current conditions: -4 ºC. what’s next? winter begins.

?????

(excerpts of the original article; read it here)

Ten recommendations for boring scientific writing

1. Avoid focus

“There are many exceptions in ecology. The author has summarized them in four books”
Jens Borum, ecologist

Introducing a multitude of questions, ideas and possible relationships and avoiding the formulation of clear hypotheses is a really clever and evasive trick. This tactic insures that the reader will have no clue about the aims and the direction of the author’s thoughts and it can successfully hide his lack of original ideas.

2. Avoid originality and personality

“It has been shown numerous times that seagrasses are very important to coastal productivity (Abe 1960, Bebe 1970). It was decided to examine whether this was also the case in Atlantis”
Fictive Cebe

3. Write l o n g contributions

“A doctoral thesis is 300 pages reporting some-thing really important and well reasoned-out – or 600 pages”
Erik Ursin, fish biologist

One should always avoid being inspired by short papers, even if they are written by famous Nobel laureates and are published in prestigious journals like Science and Nature. One should insist that the great concepts and discoveries in science can not be described in relatively few words.

Scientists know that long papers display one’s great scientific wisdom and deep insight. A short paper should, therefore, be massively expanded from its original two pages to its final 16-page layout by including more and more details and mental drivel.

4. Remove most implications and every speculation

“It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material”
James Watson and Francis Crick (1953)

In many other instances, reluctance to state the obvious implications of important findings has successfully delayed their recognition. This has generated room for repeated rediscoveries and insured that the person finally being honored was often not the original discoverer.

5. Leave out illustrations, particularly good ones

Examiner: “What can’t you identify on this microscope picture of a cell lying in front of you”? Resigned student: “A tram car”
Jens Borum, former student

6. Omit necessary steps of reasoning

“I once knew a man from New Zealand who did not have a single tooth left in his mouth. Nonetheless, I have never met anyone like him that could play the drums”
Freely after Mark Twain, journalist

Sentences that are needed in an ordinary text to gradually unfold the necessary steps of reasoning and insure the logic of an argument should be omitted in the scientific writings by members of the chosen clerisy of a particular science discipline.

7. Use many abbreviations and technical terms

“When I started my geology studies in 1962 what we learned above the level of minerals and fossils was absolutely nonsense. The poor teachers did not understand what they were lecturing, but hid their ignorance behind an enormous terminology. All this changed with the theory of plate tectonics”
Finn Surlyk, geologist (2006)

This practice will also prevent breakthroughs and interdisciplinary understanding without a massive investment in cooperative translations between jargon-ridden scientific disciplines. It must remain mentally overwhelming for readers to cross the borders between disciplines on their own.

8. Suppress humor and flowery language

“We found a new species of ciliate during a marine field course in Rønberg and named it Cafeteria roenbergensis because of its voracious and indiscriminate appetite after many dinner discussions in the local cafeteria”
Tom Fenchel, marine biologist

Naming a new species Cafeteria, or for that matter calling a delicate, transparent medusa Lizzia blondina, shows lack of respect and will prevent us from ever forgetting the names. I highly discourage creating these kinds of clever names, because science writing should remain a puritanical, serious and reputable business.

9. Degrade species and biology to statistical elements

Our scientific writing in biology should reduce all species to numbers and statistical elements without considering any interesting biological aspects of adaptation, behavior and evolution. The primary goal of ecological study should be the statistical testing of different models. This is especially true because, on further examination, these models are often indistinguishable from each other, and many have no biological meaning. Hence, writing about them will inevitably produce dry, humorless, uninspired text.

10. Quote numerous papers for self-evident statements

When all else is lost, and one’s scientific paper is beginning to make too much sense, read too clearly, and display too much insight and enthusiasm, I have one last recommendation that can help the author to maintain the essential boring tone. My advice is to make sure that all written statements, even trivial ones, must be supported by one or more references. It does not matter that these statements are self-evident or that they comply with well-established knowledge, add a reference, or preferable 3–5, anyhow.

Excessive quotation can be developed to perfection such that the meaning of whole paragraphs is veiled in the limited space between references. This technique maintains the boring quality of scientific publications by slowing down the reader, hiding any interesting information, and taking up valuable space. When authors are unsure of which paper to cite, they should always resort to citing their own work regardless of its relevance.