Bad science journalism how-to
Linked above is a great break-down of how to write a bad piece of science journalism. Wish I'd written it, that's all I can say!
Labels: humour, science writing
Through scepticism comes truth.
Linked above is a great break-down of how to write a bad piece of science journalism. Wish I'd written it, that's all I can say!
Labels: humour, science writing
I can't resist giving a free plug to my friend Nathan's new podcast, Questionably Sane. It doesn't have too much to do with science but I think it's funny (although it does come with a coarse language warning).
Well, I always wanted to write a story in the form of a scientific paper, but this is way better.
How to write a scientific paper
17 January 2007A tongue-in-cheek guide to turning scientific jargon into a riveting read.By Bea Realist Department of Arcane Abstrusities, University of California, Irvine References
1. 'Professorial Pathology' by E. U. Rieka, A. B. Surd and I. M. Pedant, Journ. Academic Backstabbing Vol 3, 1980.
2. Explaining Asimov (Twelve Volumes) by The National Academy of Sciences, 1981.Abstract
A new formulation of the traditional academic paper is considered. The way scholars really read scientific papers is discussed. This paper itself is written in the new method herein proposed. Studies among the author's friends indicate that reading time for most scientific literature can be reduced three-fold by use of this method. For some papers, reading time approaches zero.
Labels: academia, humour, science writing
This is just too cute not to post... click the link for the full article.
Labels: Harry Potter, humour, medical ethics