If you're not sure what I'm getting at, I've learned that arguing over the Internet is a ticklish business. I may be confident of 100%, but there's no way I'm getting that, so here I'm pushing for 20%, and you just gave me 10%, which I will take!
Stating my opinion in words, I do agree that current conventions are stuffy, but overall they…
If you're not sure what I'm getting at, I've learned that arguing over the Internet is a ticklish business. I may be confident of 100%, but there's no way I'm getting that, so here I'm pushing for 20%, and you just gave me 10%, which I will take!
Stating my opinion in words, I do agree that current conventions are stuffy, but overall they work very well. Granted, the Discussion section does not *often* contain much in the way of speculation or witty turns of phrase, but in principle it can - and dry humor often finds its way into the Introduction and Results sections. I can also think of a very good reason why style should be mostly kept to a minimum: many researchers, particularly in the hard sciences, are stodgy, verbally awkward, and literal-minded. If style is given free reign, soon enough it becomes the norm; when good science is associated with beautiful and entertaining writing, important results may find themselves relegated to low-impact journals or even the file drawer.
Those are definitely the counterarguments here - the hope would be we can find a better middle ground and scientists can open up to the important of style/aesthetics over time.
If you're not sure what I'm getting at, I've learned that arguing over the Internet is a ticklish business. I may be confident of 100%, but there's no way I'm getting that, so here I'm pushing for 20%, and you just gave me 10%, which I will take!
Stating my opinion in words, I do agree that current conventions are stuffy, but overall they work very well. Granted, the Discussion section does not *often* contain much in the way of speculation or witty turns of phrase, but in principle it can - and dry humor often finds its way into the Introduction and Results sections. I can also think of a very good reason why style should be mostly kept to a minimum: many researchers, particularly in the hard sciences, are stodgy, verbally awkward, and literal-minded. If style is given free reign, soon enough it becomes the norm; when good science is associated with beautiful and entertaining writing, important results may find themselves relegated to low-impact journals or even the file drawer.
Those are definitely the counterarguments here - the hope would be we can find a better middle ground and scientists can open up to the important of style/aesthetics over time.