Posted by
Johannes Helm on
URL: http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Microscopy-or-Microscopies-tp7579142p7579161.html
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy*****
Good morning,
another aspect of this interesting and important discussion might be: To
which degree is one willing to trade logical correctness for
comprehensivity.
When starting university studies, I became a student of mathematics
before, later, switching to physics. I remember very clearly that the
Professor presenting the lecture on Linear Algebra made the following
statement:
"In science, Do NOT care about how people use language in everyday life.
The only, the very only demand is to be logically correct as far as ever
possible, how difficult ever it will be for a reader to understand your
sentences."
Tobias mentioned Kant in an earlier contribution to this discussion. I am
NOT an expert in Kant. Nevertheless, I have read some of Kant's oeuvres.
He seems to be logically quite correct. However, it is NOT a task too easy
to read Kant.
I still stick to the principle presented by the aforementioned Professor
in maths - and often get comments.
Example:
During a Friday afternoon group meeting, I was supplying the entire gang
with coffee. A colleague retracted her cup when I was approaching. I asked
her: "Du you not want any coffee?" and she answered: "No, thank you!". I
poured coffee into her cup and she protested. There was not any intention
on my side on making jokes on her, I just behaved "logically correct". "I
have become that way during maths studies", I explained, what was accepted
by all colleagues with a general smile. Another colleague replied: "In
biology, we behave normal!"
Best,
Johannes
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy> *****
>
>
> It?s a bit strange to send a grammar question to this email list, but
since it deals with microscopy and has perhaps come up in other
contexts,
> I thought someone reading may have insights. We?ve written a paper
whose
> title contains the phrase ?[...] using confocal and light sheet
> fluorescence microscopies? (i.e. in which we use both confocal
microscopy
> and light sheet fluorescence microscopy to image things). A reviewer
suggests replacing ?microscopies? with ?microscopy.? I think
> ?microscopies? sounds better, but as a counter-point, I would think ?...
comparing left-handed and right-handed calligraphy? would sound better
than ?calligraphies? if I were writing about handwriting. Thoughts?
(Sorry for stretching the boundaries of the confocal list ? hopefully it?s
--
P. Johannes Helm
Voice: (+47) 228 51159 (office)
Fax: (+47) 228 51499 (office)