http://confocal-microscopy-list.275.s1.nabble.com/Microscopy-or-Microscopies-tp7579142p7579163.html
Jonathan Miller's routine as Bertrand Russell meeting George Moore.
>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
>> not too annoying!)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Raghu
>>
>> --
>> Raghuveer Parthasarathy
>>
[hidden email]
>>
>>
>> Associate Professor
>> Department of Physics
>> 1274 University of Oregon
>> Eugene, OR 97403-1274
>>
http://physics.uoregon.edu/~raghu/>>
>
>
>--
>P. Johannes Helm
>
>Voice: (+47) 228 51159 (office)
>Fax: (+47) 228 51499 (office)
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859