[ECOLOG-L] Old Aquarium pumps
Dear Colleagues Does anyone know where we would buy old Aquarium pumps (model RENA 301 [or a comparable one]). We cannot get them from suppliers in Sweden, but someone would perhaps know an alternative. We need these to create positive pressure for odour sampling. We found them cheap and convertible to suction pumps, durable and usable in the field. Does anyone know of a fairly robust alternative? Kind regards, Aman Aman Bonaventure, Diivision of Chemical Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P. O. Box 102, SE 230 53, Alnarp. Sweden.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all
Perhaps then David has managed to escape some of the pressures put on scientists to write badly. On several occasions I have been accused of writing scientific papers in a journalistic style and told that this is not acceptable. Although my reply is usually along the lines of, Aren't journalists the people who are forced to take courses on how to write?, this never seems to sink in. On one occasion my lab director even sniffed that a paper I had written read like something that might appear in Scientific American. I was flattered but forced to change it. My favourite example was the time I wrote a paper in which I argued that we have to teach the public that there is more to biodiversity than cute harp seals and fuzzy pandas, and the reviewer complained that if I knew how to write a scientific paper I would know that words like cute and fuzzy are unacceptable, and I should have referred to charismatic megafauna. I even had a T-shirt made up with the message I brake for charismatic megafauna. Fortunately a few papers I wrote on applications of fuzzy set theory to ecology made it into print. I once wrote a paper presenting a general theory of managing multi-species fisheries, and was informed (see, passive voice!) that the journal required that the Latin names of the species had to be included. Given the generality of the theory, I provided the names Squid pro quo and Dolus fictus, but was eventually forced to use the generic names species A and species B. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: domingo, 17 de Janeiro de 2010 18:44 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all As a scientist AND a journalist, I would say that Orwell is right, and that you seem to be sorely misguided. There is nothing wrong with writing CLEARLY. Active voice, fewer syllables, etc., etc., do absolutely nothing to lower reading comprehension among the masses. It does absolutely nothing to lower the quality or the beauty of the writing. Some of the greatest, most beautiful, and most complex writing in the world comes in the form of haiku -- 17 syllables. Who benefits by the use of a big, obscure word when a small, common one will do? Generally only the writer, who demonstrates by his choice of random selections from an unabridged dictionary how much more intelligent he is than his readers. I'm not against big words in principle, but they should be used only when necessary -- such as when there are no suitable substitutes.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all
There is a reason for using long words when writing in a foreign language, although I do not know whether it is relevant to native Chinese-speakers. Long words are often easier to learn in a foreign language because they fit in a pattern of cognates. This is especially true for words based on Latin since there are cognates in so many European tongues. Once you encounter the various patterns it is easy to guess at how to translate occupation into French, Italian Spanish or Portuguese, but coming up with short words equivalent to job takes more effort. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Cara Lin Bridgman cara@msa.hinet.net To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: domingo, 17 de Janeiro de 2010 10:16 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all Orwell, via Jane Shevsov, makes excellent points. These are points I keep trying to make to my students who are Taiwanese, but have to write papers in English. An aunt of mine, who teaches writing classes to American college students has noticed a tendency to use long words when there are plenty of short words that are as good or better.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all
I agree with David's comment about the dubiousness of using standardized test scores as a measure of the success of learning. Speaking as an American student whom has been subjected to standardized tests for most of his academic life, there are primarily two things that taking these tests teach you; how to memorize a lot of information, and how to reason the correct answer from a multiple choice question when you don't have the slightest idea otherwise. I suppose you could call it professional guesstimation; regardless of how it is labeled, it is a poor way to test students. Taking standardized tests removes the joy from expressing what you have learned by filtering down everything into four bubbles, one of which is correct. A child that has learned how to color in circles statistically has a chance to pass one of these tests. It is a joke; one that isn't funny. I believe the standardized testing system should be greatly revised, but how do you go about making those kinds of changes when there is so much money and political will behind the standardized tests as they exist? - Derek E. Pursell --- On Sun, 1/17/10, David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com wrote: From: David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Sunday, January 17, 2010, 1:44 PM As a scientist AND a journalist, I would say that Orwell is right, and that you seem to be sorely misguided. There is nothing wrong with writing CLEARLY. Active voice, fewer syllables, etc., etc., do absolutely nothing to lower reading comprehension among the masses. It does absolutely nothing to lower the quality or the beauty of the writing. Some of the greatest, most beautiful, and most complex writing in the world comes in the form of haiku -- 17 syllables. Who benefits by the use of a big, obscure word when a small, common one will do? Generally only the writer, who demonstrates by his choice of random selections from an unabridged dictionary how much more intelligent he is than his readers. I'm not against big words in principle, but they should be used only when necessary -- such as when there are no suitable substitutes. You do not serve the reader well when you force him or her to run to the dictionary every two or three sentences. You do not serve science well when your writing is so full of specialized jargon that only the select few initiates into the priesthood can understand understand it. I remember reading some historical stuff about Latin, the mass, and the Bible, and controlling the masses by denying them access to (and personal understanding of) the founding documents of their faith. At a time when an improved public understanding science is necessary, I would strongly argue that scientists take heed of Orwell's recommendations. Even if you are only thinking of communication among scientists in an interdisciplinary research program -- arguing for the sanctification of inscrutable writing does not further that goal. The problem today is not that Hemingway's style gained favor over Faulkner's, the problem is that students are not getting sufficient training in reading and writing, period. I place a lot of the blame on the fetish built up around standardized testing -- teaching students to memorize trivia that can be easily regurgitated on a multiple-choice test does little to prepare them for the time when they'll be called upon to detect and interpret patterns, to relate observations of unfamiliar phenomena to phenomena that is known and understood, to string together a coherent thought. The simple numbers -- test scores -- may arouse politicians and educational administrators, but the numbers and the process used to produce them seem to me to work against the development of a well educated population. Dave On 1/16/2010 11:57 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: Yes, it would be interesting to see some scans of the book, although somebody who has actually taken a college-level health class would be better positioned than I am to compare the book to modern ones. Your points about vocabulary and reading comprehension are interesting and I have to thank you for inspiring me to read the whole of Orwell's Politics and the English Language. I'll quote some passages at length here, because it seems to me that similar advice is responsible for a large part of the changes you talk about. (Of course, pedagogical philosophies also played a role.) I don't want to place the blame entirely, or even largely, on Orwell, but he exemplifies a movement toward deliberate simplification of language. Here are two of Orwell's complaints. Operators or verbal false limbs. These save the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns, and at the same time pad each sentence with extra syllables which give it an appearance of symmetry. Characteristic phrases are render inoperative, militate against, make contact with, be subjected to, give
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all
My very wise adviser many years ago told me that whenever I was speaking formally, at a meeting or in a seminar, there would be someone I could see who looked as if he or she wondered, What in the world am I doing here? I have no idea what these people are saying. My job was to make sure that person clearly understood everything I said. David McNeely On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 8:08 PM, David M. Lawrence wrote: Forwarded at Henshel's request... Original Message Subject:Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:56:25 -0500 From: Diane S. Henshel To: David M. Lawrence CC: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Thank you David, I agree with you. One reason that scientists need to learn to write clearly, as laid out by Orwell, is so that we can communicate with non-scientists. We need to train new scientists who need not have a language barrier on top of the information barrier. We need to convince society that the science results are important and relevant. We need to make sure that regulators think that our science is worth funding! Writing clearly is very important, even in our peer reviewed journal articles. Scientific writing needs to be clear for communication between scientists as well. As we slowly emerge from our narrow fields to start working interdisciplinarily, we can learn about potentially relevant work in other fields much more quickly if we also do not have to overcome the jargon-filled science-speak barrier we create around our narrow disciplines. Science-speak is a great way to help us feel like we are a member of the in crowd or that we have learned something with all of this time spent doing research (See - I can talk circles around you and you don't even understand what I am saying!), but is a terrible way to communicate our scientific knowledge and understanding to others, including to scientists in other disciplines. And science-speak, unfortunately, also contributes to the generation of multiple, sometimes apparently contradictory, definitions for the same term. All too often two scientists seem to be talking at odds until someone stops and says, wait, what do you mean by x. Once terms are defined, and differential uses of the same term are clarified, it seems to me that many apparent disagreements evaporate. Unfortunately, the lay public only sees (and remembers) the apparent disagreements, and neither notices nor cares that these disagreements are sometimes simply based on semantic differences. Diane Henshel On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:44 PM, David M. Lawrence wrote: As a scientist AND a journalist, I would say that Orwell is right, and that you seem to be sorely misguided. There is nothing wrong with writing CLEARLY. Active voice, fewer syllables, etc., etc., do absolutely nothing to lower reading comprehension among the masses. It does absolutely nothing to lower the quality or the beauty of the writing. Some of the greatest, most beautiful, and most complex writing in the world comes in the form of haiku -- 17 syllables. Who benefits by the use of a big, obscure word when a small, common one will do? Generally only the writer, who demonstrates by his choice of random selections from an unabridged dictionary how much more intelligent he is than his readers. I'm not against big words in principle, but they should be used only when necessary -- such as when there are no suitable substitutes. You do not serve the reader well when you force him or her to run to the dictionary every two or three sentences. You do not serve science well when your writing is so full of specialized jargon that only the select few initiates into the priesthood can understand understand it. I remember reading some historical stuff about Latin, the mass, and the Bible, and controlling the masses by denying them access to (and personal understanding of) the founding documents of their faith. At a time when an improved public understanding science is necessary, I would strongly argue that scientists take heed of Orwell's recommendations. Even if you are only thinking of communication among scientists in an interdisciplinary research program -- arguing for the sanctification of inscrutable writing does not further that goal. The problem today is not that Hemingway's style gained favor over Faulkner's, the problem is that students are not getting sufficient training in reading and writing, period. I place a lot of the blame on the fetish built up around standardized testing -- teaching students to memorize trivia that can be easily regurgitated on a multiple-choice test does little to prepare them for the time when they'll be called upon to detect and interpret patterns, to relate observations of unfamiliar phenomena to phenomena that is known and
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Not now I've seen it all - says Orwell
Bill, thank you. Not to hammer a dead horse, but I wrote my dissertation in the seventies. I was encouraged to use active voice and first person. The most recent edition of the CBE Style Manual that I actually own is the third edition (copyright 1972), though I have generally had access to more recent (and massive) versions over the years since. From my third edition (page 5): Write in the active voice unless you have a good reason for writing in the passive. The active is the natural voice, the one in which people commonly speak and write, and it is less likely than the passive to lead to ambiguity. There follows a series of explanations and examples detailing why first person is generally preferable to other persons, especially in describing methods where it provides clear explanation of who did what, rather than the ambiguity of the third person passive, where one might wonder who at all did the experiments described. Thanks, David On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM, William Silvert wrote: Several subscribers have disagreed with my statement about passive/active voice, and I stand corrected. Perhaps the case was best stated by someone who wrote me off-list to say I have noticed a change in the last 4 years...I was instructed by many to use the passive voice and to shy away from the active voice which very often required the use of first person pronouns. But in the last year, a growing trend has led away from the use of passives. Just today, when haphazardly choosing 3 abstracts from the most recent issue of Science, I found all to be written in the active voice and found the first person 'we' in two of them...I think 'modern scientific writing' may indeed be evolving again. I am pleased to be shown wrong and commend the scientific community for this stylistic improvement. Bill Silvert
Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all: Decline in education
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Val Smith vsm...@ku.edu wrote: I lay much of this decline at the feet of their parents, who seem to care progressively less and less about knowledge. I recall a particularly notable incident from over a decade ago, when my youngest daughter's grade school Principal retired. The new Principal unilaterally decided that Science Fair projects for grades 2-6 should become completely voluntary, rather than remaining as a formal requirement that had long been embedded in this school's outstanding science preparation curriculum. On the day of the science project evaluations, I expressed dismay about this undesirable change to another parent, who at that time was almost 20 years my junior. Her response was to shout across the room to her husband, John (not his real name), this guy thinks everybody should have to do a science fair project, and /that this is all about learning science/! and she then turned to me to say, If everyone has to do a project, that lowers the chance that our child will win the Best Science Project award. That's unfair competition. And she walked away. As I was reading your post, I was hoping you would mention the role of parents in any decline in the quality of the American education. I think it started with the baby boom. After the Depression and World War II, parents wanted the best for their children, but by providing the best materially, many raised children with an inflated sense of entitlement and self-importance. When these children raised my generation, self-esteem was seen as the most important quality you could promote in a developing mind, so many of us grew up feeling even more entitled and important. Also, since self-important people like today's parents don't respect authority figures, parents now tend to side with their children over teachers when there is a student-teacher conflict. Worse, since the entire class is, on average, not as prepared as it should be to learn the material you're trying to teach, disgruntled students can look to low average performance for the whole class to assure themselves that it's your fault if they don't get high marks. With students and parents both blaming you for low grades, and a low class average apparently supporting their arguments, it's easiest to lower your expectations and standards. (And you'll probably get higher teaching evaluation scores if you do.) When you do, you end up passing on students who aren't prepared for the next level of education. I understand the importance of questioning authority, and Wendee Holtcamp's example of childbirth in American hospitals attests to that importance (though I believe the doctors rush the delivery because they're trained to believe it's best for the patient, not because they put their spare time ahead of patient care). However, there's an important distinction between questioning authority and assuming authority is wrong. With respect to the original conversation thread, while I certainly agree that it's a problem that people with the appearance of authority are making BS claims on television, I don't think that's the only major threat to scientific authority. Another threat is the widely-held perception that any scientist who thinks they know more than you do about their area of expertise is arrogant (and wrong). Because scientific knowledge is contingent on future results, scientists sometimes find themselves admitting that they were wrong about something. Unlike pundits or politicians, scientists can't blame some other party, and people will hold onto those errors as evidence that we're not as clever as we think we are, so they can ignore us if they don't like our message. Also, some people just don't like smart people much, so mistakes made by smart people are cherished as proof that they aren't so smart after all. Mind you, I have little evidence for most of the generalities I'm making here, but this is just my model of why students seem to be less prepared than they used to and why scientific authority doesn't get the respect I think it should. Jim Crants
Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell; NOW: origin of foods
Hmmm, native to North America seems to have turned into originated north of Mexico. Aside from the fact that at least when I went to high school Mexico was considered part of North America, there were certainly foods like peanuts, corn and squash that were native to North America even though they may have originated south of the border. But I think that this discussion may have wandered a bit away from ecology, although the origin of foods is a fascinating topic which is why I am so proud of my mother's book. I might add a note about what happened to these American foods after the globalisation of 1492. My wife grew up in East Timor and one day we were sitting at dinner eating a traditional Timorese vegetable stew and discussing what we could serve at a Thanksgiving dinner we were planning. Suddenly I looked down at my plate and realised that almost everything in the stew came originally from the Americas, and that it would make a fine Thanksgiving dish. Of course not everyone is happy with these observations. My mother received an angry letter pointing out that the Chinese have cultivated peanuts for hundreds of years, so they couldn't have come from North America. And don't try to tell an Italian that pomodori are not native to Italy! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Henebry, Geoffrey geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu To: William Silvert cien...@silvert.org; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: segunda-feira, 18 de Janeiro de 2010 13:08 Subject: WAS: RE: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell; NOW: origin of foods Bill's mother is certainly correct: Central and South America have yielded many foods now widely cultivated and enjoyed. I still maintain that few contemporary foods appear to have originated north of Mexico: specifically, Jerusalem artichokes, blueberries, and cranberries. Are there others? Geoff Henebry -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 4:06 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell I must take issue with the phrase one of the few foods native to North America and would like to reciprocate Geoffrey's reference with a reference to a book that my mother wrote called The Taste Makers: How New World Foods came to Old World Kitchens which describes numerous foods from the Americas which have made their way to the rest of the world. I believe that she describes 16 different foods, and while some are from South America, many are from the north. She did not include the Jerusalem artichoke, and I am sure that there are other omissions as well. Since my mother, Vicki Oppenheimer, was an anthropologist, she focussed on foods that had cultural significance. Information on the book can be found at http://milpah.silvert.org/tmfinal/ and the entire book can be downloaded there in PDF format for free, although it is also in print and available for sale. Even for those who are not foodies, there is some material of ecological interest as well. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Henebry, Geoffrey geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu To: William Silvert cien...@silvert.org; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: domingo, 17 de Janeiro de 2010 19:24 Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell With respect to the biofuels potential of one of the few foods native to North America, Helianthus tuberosus, let me suggest an entertaining read: The Great Jerusalem Artichoke Circus: The Buying and Selling of the Rural American Dream by JA Amato. Here's the synopsis from the publisher's website (http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/A/amato_great.html): In 1981, near the end of America's second post-World War II energy crisis, and at the onset of the nation's most recent farm crisis, American Energy Farming Systems began to sell and distribute what it deemed a providential plant destined to be a new and saving crop-the Jerusalem Artichoke. This volume recounts this story of the bizarre intersection of evangelical Christianity, a mythical belief in the powers of a new crop, and the depression of the U.S. farm economy in the 1980s. Enjoy! Geoff Henebry
[ECOLOG-L] WAS: RE: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell; NOW: origin of foods
Bill's mother is certainly correct: Central and South America have yielded many foods now widely cultivated and enjoyed. I still maintain that few contemporary foods appear to have originated north of Mexico: specifically, Jerusalem artichokes, blueberries, and cranberries. Are there others? Geoff Henebry -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 4:06 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell I must take issue with the phrase one of the few foods native to North America and would like to reciprocate Geoffrey's reference with a reference to a book that my mother wrote called The Taste Makers: How New World Foods came to Old World Kitchens which describes numerous foods from the Americas which have made their way to the rest of the world. I believe that she describes 16 different foods, and while some are from South America, many are from the north. She did not include the Jerusalem artichoke, and I am sure that there are other omissions as well. Since my mother, Vicki Oppenheimer, was an anthropologist, she focussed on foods that had cultural significance. Information on the book can be found at http://milpah.silvert.org/tmfinal/ and the entire book can be downloaded there in PDF format for free, although it is also in print and available for sale. Even for those who are not foodies, there is some material of ecological interest as well. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Henebry, Geoffrey geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu To: William Silvert cien...@silvert.org; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: domingo, 17 de Janeiro de 2010 19:24 Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell With respect to the biofuels potential of one of the few foods native to North America, Helianthus tuberosus, let me suggest an entertaining read: The Great Jerusalem Artichoke Circus: The Buying and Selling of the Rural American Dream by JA Amato. Here's the synopsis from the publisher's website (http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/A/amato_great.html): In 1981, near the end of America's second post-World War II energy crisis, and at the onset of the nation's most recent farm crisis, American Energy Farming Systems began to sell and distribute what it deemed a providential plant destined to be a new and saving crop-the Jerusalem Artichoke. This volume recounts this story of the bizarre intersection of evangelical Christianity, a mythical belief in the powers of a new crop, and the depression of the U.S. farm economy in the 1980s. Enjoy! Geoff Henebry
[ECOLOG-L] REU: Ecology, Evolution and Genomics of Grassland Organisms
The Research Experiences for Undergraduates program in the Division of Biology at Kansas State University is accepting applications for this summer's 10-week program. We're pleased to again offer opportunities for research in ecology, evolutionary biology, and genomics at K-State (Manhattan, KS) and Konza Prairie Biological Station. For full details, please visit: http://www.k-state.edu/reu/ -Bruce ~~~ Bruce A. Snyder, PhD Instructor; REU Program Coordinator basny...@ksu.edu Mail: Kansas State University Division of Biology 116 Ackert Hall Manhattan, KS 66506-4901 Office: 136 Ackert Hall 785-532-2430
[ECOLOG-L] USING ISOTOPE TRACER ADDITIONS TO QUANTIFY FOOD WEB FLOWS IN STREAM ECOSYSTEMS
Hello all - This is to announce a special session at this year's NABS ASLO meeting (june 6-10 Santa Fe NM) on using stable isotope tracer additions to quantify food web flows in stream ecosystems (full description appended at the end of this email). Despite the word stream in the title, we are interested in a multidisciplinary perspective on using these techniques to quantify trophic flows. We encourage submissions from broad habitats and those that involve coupled tracers and theoretical analyses. Abstracts are due on Feb 12 2010. Hope to see you there! Please feel free to contact me (rw...@cornell.edu) should you have any questions. The meeting website is here http://www.aslo.org/santafe2010. Thank you! Rana El-Sabaawi (on behalf of the session organizers). S49: USING ISOTOPE TRACER ADDITIONS TO QUANTIFY FOOD WEB FLOWS IN STREAM ECOSYSTEMS Organizers: Rana El-Sabaawi, Cornell University, rw...@cornell.edu; Alex Flecker, Cornell University, a...@cornell.edu and Steve Thomas, University of Nebraska - Lincoln,sthom...@unlnotes.unl.edu The use of whole-stream isotope additions has greatly improved our estimates of biogeochemical transformations such as nitrification, denitrification and ammonium uptake. These techniques have facilitated the ability to compare biogeochemical processes across many types of stream ecosystems, and have led to several cross-system syntheses of nitrogen dynamics. Tracer additions have also been used to measure how food web fluxes respond to various environmental and biological factors, but the development and synthesis of tracer-generated models of food web structure and function have lagged behind measurements of biogeochemical processes. The goal of this session is to provide a forum for researchers to synthesize tracer-generated food web models and identify future needs and directions for these analyses. Invited and submitted talks will address case studies highlighting how tracer additions have been used to answer food web-related questions and identify technical challenges of modeling food webs based on isotope tracer data. A further goal of this session will be to investigate how food web theory can be coupled with tracer techniques to generate comprehensive food web models of lotic ecosystems. This session aims to galvanize and coordinate efforts that compare patterns of food web dynamics and trophic connections across diverse systems.
[ECOLOG-L] Climatologists sought
Sr. and Jr. Climatologists sought to provide assistance in developing ecological assessments of western federal lands on a landscape scale to evaluate impacts of wildland fire, invasive species, development, and climate change on native species and habitats. The applicants should have degree(s) in climate science or a related field. The work will be performed for a contractor under a federal contract. Send resume and three references (files should include your last name) to mi...@emi-nm.com
Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all
Jane Shevtsov wrote: Yes, it would be interesting to see some scans of the book, although somebody who has actually taken a college-level health class would be better positioned than I am to compare the book to modern ones. ... And here are Orwell's prescriptions: (i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. (ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do. (iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. (iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active. (v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. (vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. ... Allowing that Orwell was addressing writing for public consumption and not for the scientific community I would suggest reading at least the first three (?) chapters of Angelika Hofmann, 2009, Scientific Writing and Communication: Papers, Proposals, and Presentations, Oxford University Press. Maybe less to Malcolm's original point and more to the needs of our scientific community, I would recommend Hofmann's book to every one of our readers of this ListServ. -- Ken Leonard, Ph.D. Candidate The University of Georgia Odum School of Ecology (Bradford Lab) 517 Biological Sciences Bldg. Athens, GA 30602 US I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. -- Galileo Galilei kleon...@uga.edu, ken_leon...@earthlink.net http://kleonard.myweb.uga.edu/ 1+404.307.6425
[ECOLOG-L] Testing Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all
Honorable Forum: An eloquent if ungrammatical expression of the persistent legacy of authoritarian control having education in its terrible grip. The mere fact that testing has persisted in academia is its strongest indictment. It is a near-ultimate irony that academia continues to place the Mark of Cain upon students because they failed to grasp some fact in time, and reducing perhaps the most complex phenomenon of all to elementary arithmetic, as if percentages and letter grades actually reflected PERFORMANCE and POTENTIAL. This irony is inescapable, and contaminates the thinking process, diverting intelligence into ruts rather than giving it room to soar. It is the iron grip of CULTURE overwhelming the QUEST. WT - Original Message - From: Derek Pursell dep1...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 2:14 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all I agree with David's comment about the dubiousness of using standardized test scores as a measure of the success of learning. Speaking as an American student whom has been subjected to standardized tests for most of his academic life, there are primarily two things that taking these tests teach you; how to memorize a lot of information, and how to reason the correct answer from a multiple choice question when you don't have the slightest idea otherwise. I suppose you could call it professional guesstimation; regardless of how it is labeled, it is a poor way to test students. Taking standardized tests removes the joy from expressing what you have learned by filtering down everything into four bubbles, one of which is correct. A child that has learned how to color in circles statistically has a chance to pass one of these tests. It is a joke; one that isn't funny. I believe the standardized testing system should be greatly revised, but how do you go about making those kinds of changes when there is so much money and political will behind the standardized tests as they exist? - Derek E. Pursell --- On Sun, 1/17/10, David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com wrote: From: David M. Lawrence d...@fuzzo.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Sunday, January 17, 2010, 1:44 PM As a scientist AND a journalist, I would say that Orwell is right, and that you seem to be sorely misguided. There is nothing wrong with writing CLEARLY. Active voice, fewer syllables, etc., etc., do absolutely nothing to lower reading comprehension among the masses. It does absolutely nothing to lower the quality or the beauty of the writing. Some of the greatest, most beautiful, and most complex writing in the world comes in the form of haiku -- 17 syllables. Who benefits by the use of a big, obscure word when a small, common one will do? Generally only the writer, who demonstrates by his choice of random selections from an unabridged dictionary how much more intelligent he is than his readers. I'm not against big words in principle, but they should be used only when necessary -- such as when there are no suitable substitutes. You do not serve the reader well when you force him or her to run to the dictionary every two or three sentences. You do not serve science well when your writing is so full of specialized jargon that only the select few initiates into the priesthood can understand understand it. I remember reading some historical stuff about Latin, the mass, and the Bible, and controlling the masses by denying them access to (and personal understanding of) the founding documents of their faith. At a time when an improved public understanding science is necessary, I would strongly argue that scientists take heed of Orwell's recommendations. Even if you are only thinking of communication among scientists in an interdisciplinary research program -- arguing for the sanctification of inscrutable writing does not further that goal. The problem today is not that Hemingway's style gained favor over Faulkner's, the problem is that students are not getting sufficient training in reading and writing, period. I place a lot of the blame on the fetish built up around standardized testing -- teaching students to memorize trivia that can be easily regurgitated on a multiple-choice test does little to prepare them for the time when they'll be called upon to detect and interpret patterns, to relate observations of unfamiliar phenomena to phenomena that is known and understood, to string together a coherent thought. The simple numbers -- test scores -- may arouse politicians and educational administrators, but the numbers and the process used to produce them seem to me to work against the development of a well educated population. Dave On 1/16/2010 11:57 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: Yes, it would be interesting to see some scans of the book, although somebody who has actually taken a college-level health class would be better positioned than I am to
[ECOLOG-L] REU and Senior Thesis Opportunities at the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory
The Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL) is now accepting student applications for our Educational Programs: REU/Advanced Independent Research and Independent Research with a Course: Methods in Field Ecology, Research Training in Wildlife Biology, or Research Training in Field Botany. We have scholarships, we accommodate senior thesis students, and we strongly encourage applicants from under-represented groups. *The deadline for REU and Scholarship applications is February 15, 2010. * *All information is available on the website: www.rmbl.org/education*
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Not now I've seen it all - says Orwell
I've always thought the main reason for avoiding I in scientific papers was to prevent self-aggrandizement. It's not about you -- it's about the research. We may be ok, but the passive voice serves a moral/social purpose in single-authored works. Jane On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:10 AM, David L. McNeely mcnee...@cox.net wrote: Bill, thank you. Not to hammer a dead horse, but I wrote my dissertation in the seventies. I was encouraged to use active voice and first person. The most recent edition of the CBE Style Manual that I actually own is the third edition (copyright 1972), though I have generally had access to more recent (and massive) versions over the years since. From my third edition (page 5): Write in the active voice unless you have a good reason for writing in the passive. The active is the natural voice, the one in which people commonly speak and write, and it is less likely than the passive to lead to ambiguity. There follows a series of explanations and examples detailing why first person is generally preferable to other persons, especially in describing methods where it provides clear explanation of who did what, rather than the ambiguity of the third person passive, where one might wonder who at all did the experiments described. Thanks, David On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM, William Silvert wrote: Several subscribers have disagreed with my statement about passive/active voice, and I stand corrected. Perhaps the case was best stated by someone who wrote me off-list to say I have noticed a change in the last 4 years...I was instructed by many to use the passive voice and to shy away from the active voice which very often required the use of first person pronouns. But in the last year, a growing trend has led away from the use of passives. Just today, when haphazardly choosing 3 abstracts from the most recent issue of Science, I found all to be written in the active voice and found the first person 'we' in two of them...I think 'modern scientific writing' may indeed be evolving again. I am pleased to be shown wrong and commend the scientific community for this stylistic improvement. Bill Silvert -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org Check out my blog, http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.comPerceiving Wholes The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars. --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Not now I've seen it all - says Orwell
Again quoting from the third edition (but the admonishment has persisted) of the CBE Style Manual (page 6): Avoid the 'passive of modesty,' a favorite device of writers who shun the first person singular. The authors devote a whole paragraph to explaining why. Further down in the paragraph they state: 'I' may embarrass the writer, but it is less likely to be ambiguous. Look up the instructions to authors for the journals published by ESA or any other scholarly organization in our field, or simply consult publications in those journals to satisfy yourself on this matter. David On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: I've always thought the main reason for avoiding I in scientific papers was to prevent self-aggrandizement. It's not about you -- it's about the research. We may be ok, but the passive voice serves a moral/social purpose in single-authored works. Jane On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:10 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: Bill, thank you. Not to hammer a dead horse, but I wrote my dissertation in the seventies. I was encouraged to use active voice and first person. The most recent edition of the CBE Style Manual that I actually own is the third edition (copyright 1972), though I have generally had access to more recent (and massive) versions over the years since. From my third edition (page 5): Write in the active voice unless you have a good reason for writing in the passive. The active is the natural voice, the one in which people commonly speak and write, and it is less likely than the passive to lead to ambiguity. There follows a series of explanations and examples detailing why first person is generally preferable to other persons, especially in describing methods where it provides clear explanation of who did what, rather than the ambiguity of the third person passive, where one might wonder who at all did the experiments described. Thanks, David On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM, William Silvert wrote: Several subscribers have disagreed with my statement about passive/active voice, and I stand corrected. Perhaps the case was best stated by someone who wrote me off-list to say I have noticed a change in the last 4 years...I was instructed by many to use the passive voice and to shy away from the active voice which very often required the use of first person pronouns. But in the last year, a growing trend has led away from the use of passives. Just today, when haphazardly choosing 3 abstracts from the most recent issue of Science, I found all to be written in the active voice and found the first person 'we' in two of them...I think 'modern scientific writing' may indeed be evolving again. I am pleased to be shown wrong and commend the scientific community for this stylistic improvement. Bill Silvert -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, Check out my blog, Perceiving Wholes The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars. --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight
Re: [ECOLOG-L] WAS: RE: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell; NOW: origin of foods
Several different types of squash are also native to various regions of the Southeast and East Coast. Tree nuts were also managed intensively for food purposes as well as many native tubers that most are not familiar with. Wild rice is also native to the Great Lakes Region and is still managed by American Indians today. There is a surprising amount of native agrobiodiversity that was intensively managed - although not 'domesticated' and managed as the other centers and regions of origin for most of our economically important crop species. Many crops have significant local and regional cultural value but have not diffused broadly (yet). Laura R. Lewis Assistant Professor Crop Evolution and Biogeography Department of Geography and Environmental Systems University of Maryland, Baltimore County On Jan 18, 2010, at 8:08 AM, Henebry, Geoffrey wrote: Bill's mother is certainly correct: Central and South America have yielded many foods now widely cultivated and enjoyed. I still maintain that few contemporary foods appear to have originated north of Mexico: specifically, Jerusalem artichokes, blueberries, and cranberries. Are there others? Geoff Henebry -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 4:06 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell I must take issue with the phrase one of the few foods native to North America and would like to reciprocate Geoffrey's reference with a reference to a book that my mother wrote called The Taste Makers: How New World Foods came to Old World Kitchens which describes numerous foods from the Americas which have made their way to the rest of the world. I believe that she describes 16 different foods, and while some are from South America, many are from the north. She did not include the Jerusalem artichoke, and I am sure that there are other omissions as well. Since my mother, Vicki Oppenheimer, was an anthropologist, she focussed on foods that had cultural significance. Information on the book can be found at http://milpah.silvert.org/ tmfinal/ and the entire book can be downloaded there in PDF format for free, although it is also in print and available for sale. Even for those who are not foodies, there is some material of ecological interest as well. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Henebry, Geoffrey geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu To: William Silvert cien...@silvert.org; ECOLOG- l...@listserv.umd.edu Sent: domingo, 17 de Janeiro de 2010 19:24 Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell With respect to the biofuels potential of one of the few foods native to North America, Helianthus tuberosus, let me suggest an entertaining read: The Great Jerusalem Artichoke Circus: The Buying and Selling of the Rural American Dream by JA Amato. Here's the synopsis from the publisher's website (http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/A/amato_great.html): In 1981, near the end of America's second post-World War II energy crisis, and at the onset of the nation's most recent farm crisis, American Energy Farming Systems began to sell and distribute what it deemed a providential plant destined to be a new and saving crop-the Jerusalem Artichoke. This volume recounts this story of the bizarre intersection of evangelical Christianity, a mythical belief in the powers of a new crop, and the depression of the U.S. farm economy in the 1980s. Enjoy! Geoff Henebry
Re: [ECOLOG-L] WAS: RE: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell; NOW: origin of foods
Geoffrey, certainly pecans and hickories and their variants originated in the US. I assume that all of those western berries like salmon berries, logan berries, etc. did too, just as we have wild blackberries all over the south. The small native persimmon also is good to eat. Blueberries as mentioned, maple syrup - I'm an animal ecologist so this is out of my balliwick, but here are a few that haven't been mentioned g. cheers, g2 -- Gary D. Grossman, PhD Professor of Animal Ecology Warnell School of Forestry Natural Resources University of Georgia Athens, GA, USA 30602 http://www.arches.uga.edu/~grossman Board of Editors - Animal Biodiversity and Conservation Editorial Board - Freshwater Biology Editorial Board - Ecology Freshwater Fish G. Grossman Fine Art http://personal.negia.net/grossman
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Not now I've seen it all - says Orwell
They aren't opposed to using the passive voice. They are opposed to using it when it is not the best choice. Why would I startle the reader, when it communicates the intended information better than an ambiguous anonymity would? On the same page where the CBE writers advise using first person active where appropriate, they also state: Although frequently misused and abused, the passive voice has justifiable functions in technical writing. They then present several appropriate examples. Further along, they write: The passive voice may sometimes help you avoid an unnecessary and perhaps awkward change of subject. They follow this again with appropriate examples. I think the authors of the manual were opposed to ambiguity and lack of clarity, and were in favor of crisp, clear, easily understood writing. I think that is the reason that the manual has become the style guide of choice for much of scientific writing, and is no longer restricted to biology. David McNeely On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: I wonder why the writers of the CBE Style Manual are opposed to using the passive voice. Is it the usual Strunk White stuff? It's interesting that they say 'I' may embarrass the writer, but not, 'I' may startle the reader. There's an excellent article on The Passive in Technical and Scientific Writing at . You might also want to check out the Language Log piece, How long have we been avoiding the passive and why? The essay in which Orwell recommends avoiding passives itself has 20% passives! Language Log, a blog run by linguists, is generally excellent on the topic of passives. See (material posted since April 8, 2008) and (prior to that). Jane On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:28 PM, wrote: Again quoting from the third edition (but the admonishment has persisted) of the CBE Style Manual (page 6): Avoid the 'passive of modesty,' a favorite device of writers who shun the first person singular. The authors devote a whole paragraph to explaining why. Further down in the paragraph they state: 'I' may embarrass the writer, but it is less likely to be ambiguous. Look up the instructions to authors for the journals published by ESA or any other scholarly organization in our field, or simply consult publications in those journals to satisfy yourself on this matter. David On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: I've always thought the main reason for avoiding I in scientific papers was to prevent self-aggrandizement. It's not about you -- it's about the research. We may be ok, but the passive voice serves a moral/social purpose in single-authored works. Jane On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:10 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: Bill, thank you. Not to hammer a dead horse, but I wrote my dissertation in the seventies. I was encouraged to use active voice and first person. The most recent edition of the CBE Style Manual that I actually own is the third edition (copyright 1972), though I have generally had access to more recent (and massive) versions over the years since. From my third edition (page 5): Write in the active voice unless you have a good reason for writing in the passive. The active is the natural voice, the one in which people commonly speak and write, and it is less likely than the passive to lead to ambiguity. There follows a series of explanations and examples detailing why first person is generally preferable to other persons, especially in describing methods where it provides clear explanation of who did what, rather than the ambiguity of the third person passive, where one might wonder who at all did the experiments described. Thanks, David On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM, William Silvert wrote: Several subscribers have disagreed with my statement about passive/active voice, and I stand corrected. Perhaps the case was best stated by someone who wrote me off-list to say I have noticed a change in the last 4 years...I was instructed by many to use the passive voice and to shy away from the active voice which very often required the use of first person pronouns. But in the last year, a growing trend has led away from the use of passives. Just today, when haphazardly choosing 3 abstracts from the most recent issue of Science, I found all to be written in the active voice and found the first person 'we' in two of them...I think 'modern scientific writing' may indeed be evolving again. I am pleased to be shown wrong and commend the scientific community for this stylistic improvement. Bill Silvert -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, Check out my blog, Perceiving Wholes The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars. --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, Check out my blog,
Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all
I'm well aware of the pressures to write badly -- bad writers who don't realize how bad they are tend to make bad editors who want everyone else to sink to their level. A lot of the conflict is the pressure to maintain the elite priesthood versus one of the alleged purposes of science, i.e., to communicate ideas and data. Members of the priesthood do not usually realize that their efforts generally do more to undermine science than to promote it. Look at the often negative treatment given to excellent scientists/communicators by their scientific colleagues. It's not unusual for someone who writes a wildly popular (and informative) book, or hosts a wildly popular (and informative) to get a hostile reaction from purist colleagues. Don't get me started about scientists who think it's beneath them to speak to their public information staff, much less the press as a whole. Sure, journalists screw up, but they don't screw up all the time and they would screw up less if they had more cooperation from the source. Besides, given the source of most of the research funding in many disciplines, scientists have an obligation to reach out to the people paying the tab -- i.e., THE PEOPLE. I offer an anecdote about the discomfort too many in the sciences have with speaking in terms understandable by the masses. My first book, Upheaval from the Abyss: Ocean Floor Mapping and the Earth Science Revolution, seemed a natural choice for a review in Eos (Transactions of the American Geophysical Union). The editors declined to review it because it wasn't technical enough. Now, I've been attending scientific meetings off-and-on for three decades now, and I know what kinds of stories scientists tell each other about themselves and their colleagues once they've knocked a few back. I have to say I found the editors' reasoning rather at variance with the facts. Later, Dave On 1/18/2010 4:42 AM, William Silvert wrote: Perhaps then David has managed to escape some of the pressures put on scientists to write badly. On several occasions I have been accused of writing scientific papers in a journalistic style and told that this is not acceptable. Although my reply is usually along the lines of, Aren't journalists the people who are forced to take courses on how to write?, this never seems to sink in. On one occasion my lab director even sniffed that a paper I had written read like something that might appear in Scientific American. I was flattered but forced to change it. My favourite example was the time I wrote a paper in which I argued that we have to teach the public that there is more to biodiversity than cute harp seals and fuzzy pandas, and the reviewer complained that if I knew how to write a scientific paper I would know that words like cute and fuzzy are unacceptable, and I should have referred to charismatic megafauna. I even had a T-shirt made up with the message I brake for charismatic megafauna. Fortunately a few papers I wrote on applications of fuzzy set theory to ecology made it into print. I once wrote a paper presenting a general theory of managing multi-species fisheries, and was informed (see, passive voice!) that the journal required that the Latin names of the species had to be included. Given the generality of the theory, I provided the names Squid pro quo and Dolus fictus, but was eventually forced to use the generic names species A and species B. Bill Silvert -- -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- All drains lead to the ocean. -- Gill, Finding Nemo We have met the enemy and he is us. -- Pogo No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku -- Richard Brautigan
Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all: Decline in education
I watched my evaluation scores decline when I switched to active learning. I got tired of lecturing from powerpoints that the students could memorize, regurgitate on tests, and quickly forget. Somehow, it was unreasonable for me to expect the students to show up for the lectures prepared and willing to participate in class discussions. It was even more unreasonable for me to refuse to just tell us what we need to know, when they couldn't answer very simple questions that I'd toss out to stimulate discussion. It was also unreasonable for me to expect them to ask questions relevant to the material we discussed in class. I had students complain they didn't learn anything from me, but it seems to me that if they weren't asking questions -- either in class, on class discussion boards, or via e-mail -- they couldn't have been trying very hard. Maybe I am unreasonable... Dave On 1/18/2010 12:17 PM, James Crants wrote: On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Val Smithvsm...@ku.edu wrote: I lay much of this decline at the feet of their parents, who seem to care progressively less and less about knowledge. I recall a particularly notable incident from over a decade ago, when my youngest daughter's grade school Principal retired. The new Principal unilaterally decided that Science Fair projects for grades 2-6 should become completely voluntary, rather than remaining as a formal requirement that had long been embedded in this school's outstanding science preparation curriculum. On the day of the science project evaluations, I expressed dismay about this undesirable change to another parent, who at that time was almost 20 years my junior. Her response was to shout across the room to her husband, John (not his real name), this guy thinks everybody should have to do a science fair project, and /that this is all about learning science/! and she then turned to me to say, If everyone has to do a project, that lowers the chance that our child will win the Best Science Project award. That's unfair competition. And she walked away. As I was reading your post, I was hoping you would mention the role of parents in any decline in the quality of the American education. I think it started with the baby boom. After the Depression and World War II, parents wanted the best for their children, but by providing the best materially, many raised children with an inflated sense of entitlement and self-importance. When these children raised my generation, self-esteem was seen as the most important quality you could promote in a developing mind, so many of us grew up feeling even more entitled and important. Also, since self-important people like today's parents don't respect authority figures, parents now tend to side with their children over teachers when there is a student-teacher conflict. Worse, since the entire class is, on average, not as prepared as it should be to learn the material you're trying to teach, disgruntled students can look to low average performance for the whole class to assure themselves that it's your fault if they don't get high marks. With students and parents both blaming you for low grades, and a low class average apparently supporting their arguments, it's easiest to lower your expectations and standards. (And you'll probably get higher teaching evaluation scores if you do.) When you do, you end up passing on students who aren't prepared for the next level of education. I understand the importance of questioning authority, and Wendee Holtcamp's example of childbirth in American hospitals attests to that importance (though I believe the doctors rush the delivery because they're trained to believe it's best for the patient, not because they put their spare time ahead of patient care). However, there's an important distinction between questioning authority and assuming authority is wrong. With respect to the original conversation thread, while I certainly agree that it's a problem that people with the appearance of authority are making BS claims on television, I don't think that's the only major threat to scientific authority. Another threat is the widely-held perception that any scientist who thinks they know more than you do about their area of expertise is arrogant (and wrong). Because scientific knowledge is contingent on future results, scientists sometimes find themselves admitting that they were wrong about something. Unlike pundits or politicians, scientists can't blame some other party, and people will hold onto those errors as evidence that we're not as clever as we think we are, so they can ignore us if they don't like our message. Also, some people just don't like smart people much, so mistakes made by smart people are cherished as proof that they aren't so smart after all. Mind you, I have little evidence for most of the generalities I'm making here, but this is just my model of why students seem to be less prepared than they used to and why scientific
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Not now I've seen it all - says Orwell
I wonder why the writers of the CBE Style Manual are opposed to using the passive voice. Is it the usual Strunk White stuff? It's interesting that they say 'I' may embarrass the writer, but not, 'I' may startle the reader. There's an excellent article on The Passive in Technical and Scientific Writing at http://www.jacweb.org/Archived_volumes/Text_articles/V2_Rodman.htm. You might also want to check out the Language Log piece, How long have we been avoiding the passive and why? http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003380.html The essay in which Orwell recommends avoiding passives itself has 20% passives! Language Log, a blog run by linguists, is generally excellent on the topic of passives. See http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=54 (material posted since April 8, 2008) and http://tinyurl.com/yldaltf (prior to that). Jane On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 2:28 PM, mcnee...@cox.net wrote: Again quoting from the third edition (but the admonishment has persisted) of the CBE Style Manual (page 6): Avoid the 'passive of modesty,' a favorite device of writers who shun the first person singular. The authors devote a whole paragraph to explaining why. Further down in the paragraph they state: 'I' may embarrass the writer, but it is less likely to be ambiguous. Look up the instructions to authors for the journals published by ESA or any other scholarly organization in our field, or simply consult publications in those journals to satisfy yourself on this matter. David On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: I've always thought the main reason for avoiding I in scientific papers was to prevent self-aggrandizement. It's not about you -- it's about the research. We may be ok, but the passive voice serves a moral/social purpose in single-authored works. Jane On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 11:10 AM, David L. McNeely wrote: Bill, thank you. Not to hammer a dead horse, but I wrote my dissertation in the seventies. I was encouraged to use active voice and first person. The most recent edition of the CBE Style Manual that I actually own is the third edition (copyright 1972), though I have generally had access to more recent (and massive) versions over the years since. From my third edition (page 5): Write in the active voice unless you have a good reason for writing in the passive. The active is the natural voice, the one in which people commonly speak and write, and it is less likely than the passive to lead to ambiguity. There follows a series of explanations and examples detailing why first person is generally preferable to other persons, especially in describing methods where it provides clear explanation of who did what, rather than the ambiguity of the third person passive, where one might wonder who at all did the experiments described. Thanks, David On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM, William Silvert wrote: Several subscribers have disagreed with my statement about passive/active voice, and I stand corrected. Perhaps the case was best stated by someone who wrote me off-list to say I have noticed a change in the last 4 years...I was instructed by many to use the passive voice and to shy away from the active voice which very often required the use of first person pronouns. But in the last year, a growing trend has led away from the use of passives. Just today, when haphazardly choosing 3 abstracts from the most recent issue of Science, I found all to be written in the active voice and found the first person 'we' in two of them...I think 'modern scientific writing' may indeed be evolving again. I am pleased to be shown wrong and commend the scientific community for this stylistic improvement. Bill Silvert -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, Check out my blog, Perceiving Wholes The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars. --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight -- - Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org Check out my blog, http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.comPerceiving Wholes The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars. --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight
Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all
CHILLING! And I thought this phenomenon was limited to California . . . I'm afraid I must lay the responsibility, in large part, to the helping professions, most notably the excuse-makers, aka social workers and their kin--some of the kindest, nicest, most sensitive and intelligent people on the planet. Much as I despise the present method of testing and grading for its inadequacies, I am even more opposed to laxity in the realm of education and the even more onerous trend of academic institutions' (and a growing number of parasitic diploma-mills which take deception several stages further) to let students slip by with certifications (degrees) that are more indicative of their presence, more or less, at university than their ability to think and perform. Airplane pilots are instructed, but they also are taught, not only by their instructors but by their peers, in a continuous process that never ends. One acquires various levels of certification based upon an understanding of sound principles (the application of which enables one to use them to integrate realities, timing, and feedback into a deep understanding that goes beyond the formal testing) that, for example, gives one the ability to perform far above grade-level when necessary, as in putting an Airbus into the Hudson River a little more than a year ago, with no loss of life. In flying, as in ballet or serving food, or acting or anything, the essence of performance is full integration of the performer with that being performed, a dedication, not to minimal standards, but to excellence. Son, always sweep a good floor, one of my earliest mentors told me. Pilots are formally tested, and many pass that end up screwing their airplane into the ground while screwing around in the cockpit, taking themselves and innocents aboard with them, not to mention the even more innocent on the ground. Automobile drivers are licensed by a lax system that results in tens of thousand of deaths every year. They slip by . . . Violinists need zero certification, but they cannot bring an audience to tears without dedication to their pursuit and full integration of themselves with their instrument. They are not all in Carnegie Hall. A few months ago I shoved some money (and inadequate amount) into the hat of a man sitting on the sidewalk with his guitar. Casting his pearls before a crowd increasingly crowded with certified slippers-by . . . I weep in outrage. WT - Original Message - From: Val Smith vsm...@ku.edu To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all At age 60, I estimate that I personally have taught, advised, and mentored more than 2,500 college undergraduates over a period of 37 years. From 2007-2009, I also served as Interim Director of KU's Undergraduate Biology Program, the single largest undergraduate teaching unit at the University of Kansas, with 22 staff members who serve more than 1,400 undergraduate majors at any one time. I thus have had a large student population from which to form my perceptions of their capabilities and academic performance. Rather than being stupid in the literal sense, I believe that Alyson actually intended to suggest that our children are increasingly less well educated, in the sense that they acquire an ever-declining knowledge of the fundamentals (this has sometimes been referred to as one component of the dumbing down of America). To me, this decline has been quite evident and quite pronounced. This trend also has in my opinion led to progressive pressure upon educators by students to reduce the rigor of their lectures and exams, and also has led to more frequent battles with students (and their parents) who think that they deserve a certain grade. While I believe that each new Freshman class in America always contains some of the very best and very brightest students whom one would ever wish to teach and mentor, I would argue that the frequency distribution of these incoming students /with regards to their overall performance/ is continually shifting to the left. During a recent business trip, my seatmate on the plane was a young (ca. 35 year-old) teaching professional who was just moving out of the university environment and into the private sector, and she expressed to me an identical perception, based upon her own personal teaching experiences in a Southeastern university. Even our Graduate Teaching Assistants in the biological sciences at KU are beginning to remark that _/*on average*/_ the freshmen with whom they interact each year are coming in progressively less well-prepared, especially in the areas of communication and math. Are they on average less intelligent? I doubt it. Are they on average less well prepared for the college curriculum? Absolutely. On average, do they have progressively poorer study and exam-taking skills? You bet! I have lost track of the number of young people
Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell; NOW: origin of foods
Well, I guess we need to have a common understanding of the term native in order to converse clearly on this subject. Peanuts originated in South America, and diffused to the north prior to European colonization. Corn and squash certainly originated in Mexico, and their wild progenitors grow there today. They diffused further north and south from Mexico. So yes, corn and squash are native to North America. I would say that peanuts are not, though when Europeans arrived they were being cultivated by some Native Americans. That doesn't make them any more native there than they are to Africa or China, where they were taken during colonial times. I believe that the usual use of the term native for a crop would be the location of original adaptation into agriculture from wild progenitors. Maybe not, maybe Bill's use of the term as being grown in a location when Europeans arrived is ok. David On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:07 AM, William Silvert wrote: Hmmm, native to North America seems to have turned into originated north of Mexico. Aside from the fact that at least when I went to high school Mexico was considered part of North America, there were certainly foods like peanuts, corn and squash that were native to North America even though they may have originated south of the border. But I think that this discussion may have wandered a bit away from ecology, although the origin of foods is a fascinating topic which is why I am so proud of my mother's book. I might add a note about what happened to these American foods after the globalisation of 1492. My wife grew up in East Timor and one day we were sitting at dinner eating a traditional Timorese vegetable stew and discussing what we could serve at a Thanksgiving dinner we were planning. Suddenly I looked down at my plate and realised that almost everything in the stew came originally from the Americas, and that it would make a fine Thanksgiving dish. Of course not everyone is happy with these observations. My mother received an angry letter pointing out that the Chinese have cultivated peanuts for hundreds of years, so they couldn't have come from North America. And don't try to tell an Italian that pomodori are not native to Italy! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Henebry, Geoffrey To: William Silvert ; Sent: segunda-feira, 18 de Janeiro de 2010 13:08 Subject: WAS: RE: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell; NOW: origin of foods Bill's mother is certainly correct: Central and South America have yielded many foods now widely cultivated and enjoyed. I still maintain that few contemporary foods appear to have originated north of Mexico: specifically, Jerusalem artichokes, blueberries, and cranberries. Are there others? Geoff Henebry -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 4:06 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell I must take issue with the phrase one of the few foods native to North America and would like to reciprocate Geoffrey's reference with a reference to a book that my mother wrote called The Taste Makers: How New World Foods came to Old World Kitchens which describes numerous foods from the Americas which have made their way to the rest of the world. I believe that she describes 16 different foods, and while some are from South America, many are from the north. She did not include the Jerusalem artichoke, and I am sure that there are other omissions as well. Since my mother, Vicki Oppenheimer, was an anthropologist, she focussed on foods that had cultural significance. Information on the book can be found at http://milpah.silvert.org/tmfinal/ and the entire book can be downloaded there in PDF format for free, although it is also in print and available for sale. Even for those who are not foodies, there is some material of ecological interest as well. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Henebry, Geoffrey To: William Silvert ; Sent: domingo, 17 de Janeiro de 2010 19:24 Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell With respect to the biofuels potential of one of the few foods native to North America, Helianthus tuberosus, let me suggest an entertaining read: The Great Jerusalem Artichoke Circus: The Buying and Selling of the Rural American Dream by JA Amato. Here's the synopsis from the publisher's website (http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/A/amato_great.html): In 1981, near the end of America's second post-World War II energy crisis, and at the onset of the nation's most recent farm crisis, American Energy Farming Systems began to sell and distribute what it deemed a providential plant destined to be a new and saving crop-the Jerusalem Artichoke. This volume recounts this story of the bizarre intersection of evangelical Christianity,
Re: [ECOLOG-L] WAS: RE: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell; NOW: origin of foods
pecans, black walnuts, rainbow trout, salmon, channel catfish, oysters, mussels, buffalo fish, sunfish (all produced in agriculture today and sold in commerce). I'm sure others would come to mind if I thought the exercise worth spending more time on. On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Henebry, Geoffrey wrote: Bill's mother is certainly correct: Central and South America have yielded many foods now widely cultivated and enjoyed. I still maintain that few contemporary foods appear to have originated north of Mexico: specifically, Jerusalem artichokes, blueberries, and cranberries. Are there others? Geoff Henebry -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 4:06 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell I must take issue with the phrase one of the few foods native to North America and would like to reciprocate Geoffrey's reference with a reference to a book that my mother wrote called The Taste Makers: How New World Foods came to Old World Kitchens which describes numerous foods from the Americas which have made their way to the rest of the world. I believe that she describes 16 different foods, and while some are from South America, many are from the north. She did not include the Jerusalem artichoke, and I am sure that there are other omissions as well. Since my mother, Vicki Oppenheimer, was an anthropologist, she focussed on foods that had cultural significance. Information on the book can be found at http://milpah.silvert.org/tmfinal/ and the entire book can be downloaded there in PDF format for free, although it is also in print and available for sale. Even for those who are not foodies, there is some material of ecological interest as well. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Henebry, Geoffrey To: William Silvert ; Sent: domingo, 17 de Janeiro de 2010 19:24 Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell With respect to the biofuels potential of one of the few foods native to North America, Helianthus tuberosus, let me suggest an entertaining read: The Great Jerusalem Artichoke Circus: The Buying and Selling of the Rural American Dream by JA Amato. Here's the synopsis from the publisher's website (http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/A/amato_great.html): In 1981, near the end of America's second post-World War II energy crisis, and at the onset of the nation's most recent farm crisis, American Energy Farming Systems began to sell and distribute what it deemed a providential plant destined to be a new and saving crop-the Jerusalem Artichoke. This volume recounts this story of the bizarre intersection of evangelical Christianity, a mythical belief in the powers of a new crop, and the depression of the U.S. farm economy in the 1980s. Enjoy! Geoff Henebry
Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all
I should have chosen my words more carefully and made a distinction between intelligent and educated. I didn't mean that children are becoming more stupid, as in their IQ or mental capacity. I meant that are children are becoming less and less educated. Fewer children are being given adequate opportunities to reach their full intellectual potential - which is a social factor, not a genetic/biological factor. I think that the minds of children today are just as capable as ever - they are sponges - which your reference to improved SAT and IQ scores supports. But a capable mind, if not given adequate opportunities for growth and development, as well as proper health care and adequate nutrition, will not reach its potential. One excellent read on the subject is The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by C. Iserbyt. Another excellent read is Deer Hunting With Jesus by J. Bageant. Collectively, these books give insights into what may be causing our public education system and society as a whole to fail our children. The end result is that many children, particularly those from poor or low-income families are simply unable to learn and perform well in school (there are multitudes of studies to support this point with a quick online search). Sadly, in the US poor children are not a minority. According to 2006 statistics by the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) at Columbia University, 57% of children in the US live in poor or low-income families. Until we address the larger societal factors that plague the lower working class in this country, their children will continue to suffer. Schools simply cannot compensate for the needs these children have. I find it unfortunate that teachers are often the first to be blamed for low test scores and the failure of public education. I think the vast majority of teachers are hard-working and compassionate, and they are doing their best, but any teacher who works in a low-income school (inner-city OR rural) knows that something needs to be done to improve the home lives of these children. If they are living in poverty, fear, and instability at home, then school is often the last thing they can think about. As a teacher, I can give a plethora of anecdotal evidence to support this. For example, how can a child who is living in a run-down trailor with a cursing, alcoholic father and a stressed-out screaming mother who is working 2 minimum wage jobs to support the family possibly gain the impetus to go to college, let alone graduate high school? I have taught young children who are living in homeless shelters. This is a national disgrace, it is a societal problem that is too often ignored, and it must be addressed if we are ever to see an improvement in our public education system. -Alyson On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Jane Shevtsov jane@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Alyson Mack alym...@gmail.com wrote: the sad truth is, our children ARE becoming more stupid every year. The fact Do you have any evidence for this claim? IQ scores have been rising pretty steadily for a century. (Look up the Flynn effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect.) SAT scores are the highest they've been since the 1960s, although a somewhat larger percentage of high school students are taking the test. There are always fluctuations, but are there any measures of intelligence that have been showing a consistent decline? On a different note, who here has read _The Demon-Haunted World_ or _Why People Believe Weird Things_? They're both relevant to the larger discussion of critical thinking. Jane On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:11 PM, malcolm McCallum malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org wrote: At what point does the scientific community realize that the current surge in patent medicines and nonsense medical devices are seriously eroding the nation's confidence in science? This is not directly related to ecology, but ecology is science and if people misuse science to sell products that are medically irrelevant it certainly must affect all science. For example, if the average person sees a supposed physician on TV parading products that absorb fat out of your body or send magnetic impulses into your joints or provide the healing effects of light, he/she does not necessarily recognize the difference between commercial claims and scientific ones. Further, if that person is suckered in to buy this sucker bait, he/she is certain to find, once any placebo affect passes, that it is shear snake oil. Consequently, these folks see these advertisements with supposed nutritionists, phds, MDs, etc. and learn not to believe what they say. Along comes a scientist claiming extraordinary changes such as climate change, ozone layer issues, problems with pollution, and endangered species...on TV, even in commercials. Why should they believe them? It looks and smells just like that snake oil aunt Martha bought off TV
Re: [ECOLOG-L] origin of foods
Depending upon your definitions: Blackberries, raspberries, plums, many species of grapes, black walnuts, hazel nuts, paw paws, pine nuts, etc. ** Don Cipollini, PhD Professor, Plant Physiology/Chemical Ecology Director, Environmental Sciences PhD Program Wright State University Department of Biological Sciences 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway Dayton, OH 45435 Phone: 937-775-3805 FAX: 937-775-3320 Email: don.cipoll...@wright.edu Web: http://www.wright.edu/~don.cipollini - Original Message - From: Yvette Dickinson yld...@psu.edu Date: Monday, January 18, 2010 5:51 pm Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] origin of foods To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Are you only thinking about fruits and vegetables? What about Turkey? Cheers Yvette Dickinson PhD Student Silviculture Applied Forest Ecology Lab School of Forest Resources 235 Forest Resources Building Pennsylvania State University University Park PA 16802 Mob. 814 308 3181 yld...@psu.edu yvette.dickin...@gmail.com On 18/01/2010, at 8:08 AM, Henebry, Geoffrey wrote: Bill's mother is certainly correct: Central and South America have yielded many foods now widely cultivated and enjoyed. I still maintain that few contemporary foods appear to have originated north of Mexico: specifically, Jerusalem artichokes, blueberries, and cranberries. Are there others? Geoff Henebry -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU ] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 4:06 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell I must take issue with the phrase one of the few foods native to North America and would like to reciprocate Geoffrey's reference with a reference to a book that my mother wrote called The Taste Makers: How New World Foods came to Old World Kitchens which describes numerous foods from the Americas which have made their way to the rest of the world. I believe that she describes 16 different foods, and while some are from South America, many are from the north. She did not include the Jerusalem artichoke, and I am sure that there are other omissions as well. Since my mother, Vicki Oppenheimer, was an anthropologist, she focussed on foods that had cultural significance. Information on the book can be found at http://milpah.silvert.org/tmfinal/ and the entire book can be downloaded there in PDF format for free, although it is also in print and available for sale. Even for those who are not foodies, there is some material of ecological interest as well. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Henebry, Geoffrey geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu To: William Silvert cien...@silvert.org; ECOLOG- l...@listserv.umd.edu Sent: domingo, 17 de Janeiro de 2010 19:24 Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell With respect to the biofuels potential of one of the few foods native to North America, Helianthus tuberosus, let me suggest an entertaining read: The Great Jerusalem Artichoke Circus: The Buying and Selling of the Rural American Dream by JA Amato. Here's the synopsis from the publisher's website (http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/A/amato_great.html): In 1981, near the end of America's second post-World War II energy crisis, and at the onset of the nation's most recent farm crisis, American Energy Farming Systems began to sell and distribute what it deemed a providential plant destined to be a new and saving crop-the Jerusalem Artichoke. This volume recounts this story of the bizarre intersection of evangelical Christianity, a mythical belief in the powers of a new crop, and the depression of the U.S. farm economy in the 1980s. Enjoy! Geoff Henebry
Re: [ECOLOG-L] WAS: RE: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell; NOW: origin of foods
pecans, black walnuts, rainbow trout, salmon, channel catfish, oysters, mussels, buffalo fish, sunfish (all produced in agriculture today and sold in commerce). I'm sure others would come to mind if I thought the exercise worth spending more time on. to the above list add chilies, which grow wild (and are native) all over S. Texas and S. Arizona. bison is also raised in agriculture and sold commercially. On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Henebry, Geoffrey wrote: Bill's mother is certainly correct: Central and South America have yielded many foods now widely cultivated and enjoyed. I still maintain that few contemporary foods appear to have originated north of Mexico: specifically, Jerusalem artichokes, blueberries, and cranberries. Are there others? Geoff Henebry -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 4:06 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell I must take issue with the phrase one of the few foods native to North America and would like to reciprocate Geoffrey's reference with a reference to a book that my mother wrote called The Taste Makers: How New World Foods came to Old World Kitchens which describes numerous foods from the Americas which have made their way to the rest of the world. I believe that she describes 16 different foods, and while some are from South America, many are from the north. She did not include the Jerusalem artichoke, and I am sure that there are other omissions as well. Since my mother, Vicki Oppenheimer, was an anthropologist, she focussed on foods that had cultural significance. Information on the book can be found at http://milpah.silvert.org/tmfinal/ and the entire book can be downloaded there in PDF format for free, although it is also in print and available for sale. Even for those who are not foodies, there is some material of ecological interest as well. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Henebry, Geoffrey To: William Silvert ; Sent: domingo, 17 de Janeiro de 2010 19:24 Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] now I've seen it all - says Orwell With respect to the biofuels potential of one of the few foods native to North America, Helianthus tuberosus, let me suggest an entertaining read: The Great Jerusalem Artichoke Circus: The Buying and Selling of the Rural American Dream by JA Amato. Here's the synopsis from the publisher's website (http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/A/amato_great.html): In 1981, near the end of America's second post-World War II energy crisis, and at the onset of the nation's most recent farm crisis, American Energy Farming Systems began to sell and distribute what it deemed a providential plant destined to be a new and saving crop-the Jerusalem Artichoke. This volume recounts this story of the bizarre intersection of evangelical Christianity, a mythical belief in the powers of a new crop, and the depression of the U.S. farm economy in the 1980s. Enjoy! Geoff Henebry
