I found this at the excellent Twitter site of Michael Nielsen, recommended by an MR reader. He also refers us to this interesting article on neurology and athletic performance and this piece on the surprises of mathematics.
Here is his blog and here is his blog post on the future of scientific journals. Here is Michael on the future of science.
Most of all, I like his six rules for rewriting.
Hail Michael Nielsen, who justifies Twitter all on his own.
Twitter involves the same dynamic seen in churches, academia, and everything. It gets the credit and reaps rewards for organizing great people.
Maybe Michael should rewrite his own article. For example, “Every sentence should grab the reader and propel them forward” is redundant. “Academics are wont to ignore this rule” needlessly uses the unusual word “wont” (why not just “academics often ignore this rule”?). “Every paragraph should contain a striking idea, originally expressed” is implausible.
“The most significant ideas should be distilled into the most potent sentences possible” has the unnecessary word “possible”, which weakens it. “and if they have been distilled into a simple, memorable core” is redundant.
etc.
Perhaps you can tell that I am not a fan of “rules” for better writing.
I thought it was weird that the long long column on the future of scientific publishing did not mention PLoS One.
Assignment for anyone who cares to undertake it:
Compare and contrast Michael Neilsen’s “Six Rules for Rewriting” with George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language.”
Quantum computing has not gone “nowhere”. Coherence times and qubit numbers are rising exponentially and several labs are close to putting out quantum-limited amplifiers. What more do you want?
Comments on this entry are closed.