How To Write Good – ADDENDUM #2

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “How To Write Good – ADDENDUM #2” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:

*********************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to “How to Write Good” [Hake (2013)] at http://yhoo.it/15ouwJm, Gene Glass wrote (paraphrasing): “The Elements of Style [Strunk & White (1959, 2000)] at http://bit.ly/13ZRsda might be the undergrad’s guide to good writing, but Jacques Barzun’s (1975, 2001) Simple & Direct at http://amzn.to/10wv2lq is surely the postgraduate textbook.”

That Simple & Direct is also “Thorough and Scholarly” is manifest in its CONTENTS page:
Introduction
I. DICTION, or Which Words to Use
II. LINKING, or What to Put Next
III. TONE AND TUNE, or What Impression Will It Make
IV. MEANING, or What Do I Want to Say?
V. COMPOSITION, or How Does It Hang Together
VI. REVISION, or What Have I Actually Said?
Hints Toward Improving the Quoted Sentences
Index of Words, Topics, and Authors

For information on Barzun see e.g.:
(a) the Wikipedia entry at http://bit.ly/Yxp4yw;
(b) the eulogy by Rothstein (2012) at http://nyti.ms/YIPAY1;
(c) the eulogy by Epstein (2012) at http://on.wsj.com/ZU4xoR;
(d) the interview by Gathman (2000) at http://bit.ly/17dQaje;
(e) the biography by Murray (2011) at http://amzn.to/120G3rS;
(f) Barzun's (2002) book A Stroll With William James http://amzn.to/19bReAB, whom Barzun regarded as his “guide and mentor.”
*********************************************

To access the complete 18 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/11tJ4WK.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm

“[Jacques Barzun] wrote in a flawless and magisterial manner on a vast array of subjects: Darwin, Marx, Wagner, Berlioz, William James, French verse, English prose composition, university teaching, detective fiction, the state of intellectual life, and finally, published when he was 93, his magnum opus, From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present. None of this writing seemed motivated by his desire to advance his career; all of it derived from genuine intellectual passion.”
- Epstein (2012)


REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 11 May 2013.]
Epstein, J. 2012. “Jacques Barzun: An Appreciation” Wall Street Journal, 26 Oct., online to subscribers at http://on.wsj.com/ZU4xoR (non-subscribers can read the entire article by searching Google for “Jacques Barzun: An Appreciation.”

Hake, R.R. 2013. “How To Write Good – ADDENDUM #2,” online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/11tJ4WK. Post of 11 May 2013 14:56:55 -0700. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

How To Write Good

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “How To Write Good” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:

*********************************************
ABSTRACT: Physoc’s Art Hobson, in a post “Once more time: Writing tips” alerted readers to (a) the abstract and the slides http://bit.ly/16T0UmN he had shown for a 2009 APS talk “Writing about, and teaching, physics for non-scientists”; and (b) two recommendations –
(1) The Craft of Scientific Writing [Alley (1996)] at http://amzn.to/YBnwWu, and
(2) The Elements of Style [Strunk & White (2000)] at http://amzn.to/109Cb9E.

To Hobson's recommendations I would add:
(3) the AIP Style Manual [AIP (1997)] at http://bit.ly/d8hJgp;

(4) “Intellectual Journey: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom - Conversations with John Kenneth Galbraith - The Art of Good Writing” [Kreisler (1986)] at http://bit.ly/ZMesNj;

(5) The Technique of Clear Writing [Gunning (1968)] at http://amzn.to/11QtG1t.

(6) “Draft No. 4: Replacing the words in boxes” [McPhee (2013)] at http://nyr.kr/12cz2Vu.

Q. So “HOW’m I DOin’ ” after having been exposed to the above 6 guides to writing good?

A. NOT BAD! The first 489 words of this post have a Gunning Fog Index of 8.8, cf. 11.9 for the first 530 words of Hemingway's masterpiece The Sun Also Rises !
; - )
*********************************************

To access the complete 14 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/15ouwJm.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EK

“We are all apprentices of a craft where no one ever becomes a master.”
- Ernest Hemingway (1961)

REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 08 May 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “How To Write Good,” online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/15ouwJm. Post of 7 May 2013 20:00:15-0700. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.

Hemingway, E. 1961. New York Journal-American, 11 July.

What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman #2

Some blog followers might be interested in a recent discussion-list post “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman #2” [Hake (2012b)]. The abstract reads:

************************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman” [Hake (2012a)] at http://bit.ly/TXMvNs, Ze'ev Wurman (2012) in a Math-Learn post at http://yhoo.it/SxJOSR (to access this post non-subscribers will need to click on “New User” in the upper left-hand corner and fill out a form) made the following five points (paraphrased for brevity [Ze’ev, please comment if you think I’ve failed to convey your meaning]:

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
1. My post focussed on Hake’s rude attack on Hansen as “illiterate” because he used the word “disinterested” to mean “uninterested” (in consonance with the OED and Merriam Webster). Considering Hake’s citation of Strunk & White at http://amzn.to/OGx7jv and Follett at http://bit.ly/Nayixo, who oppose defining “disinterested” to mean “uninterested,” I'm happy that I chose OED and Merriam Webster over Strunk & White and Follett.

2. I am not surprised by Hake’s crude misinterpretations of my quite precise critique of elementary librarians vs. teachers.

3. Nor am I surprised by Hake's preference of physics-for-dummies (“Hands- and Minds-On’ in his mellifluous description).

4. But I was taken aback by Hake’s belief that my support of phonics-based reading instruction over Whole Language is “uninformed.” After all, it is not my opinion as much as it is NICHD’s http://1.usa.gov/QegRfk, http://1.usa.gov/PEP9aA and the National Reading Panel http://bit.ly/P8AG2l. When it suits him, Hake prefers charlatanism over empirical evidence.

5. But the real issue is what all the above has to do with the issue at hand – Hake’s rude attack on Hansen as “illiterate” because of Hansen’s use of a word Hake didn't like or know.
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

In this post I comment on the above five points, indicating Wurman’s numerous errors, misrepresentations, and vacuities.
************************************************

To access the complete 41 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/NSbCh8.

Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to SDI Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6m

“. . . .there are several ways to distinguish those who advocate a concept-driven reform curriculum from those who remain defenders of a skills-oriented traditional curriculum. . . . . .They represent different value systems. I believe that rational, reflective discussion and exploration of these issues can bring the two sides closer together. . . . . . . I am told that California schools educate one-seventh of the students in this country. There is too much at stake to continue the fighting, to take a chance on sacrificing the mathematical education of our children by not reaching some agreement on what that education should be.”
- Judith Sowder (1998)

REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 25 August 2012.]
Hake, R.R. 2012a. “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman,” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/TXMvNs. Post of 23 Aug 2012 14:56:24-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/MPsKXQ with a provision for comments.

Hake, R.R. 2012b. “What Mathematicians Might Learn From Physicists: Response to Wurman #2,” online on the OPEN AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/NSbCh8. Post of 25 Aug 2012 15:56:24-0700 to AERA-L, Math-Learn, and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists and are also on my blog “Hake'sEdStuff” at http://bit.ly/SCjR4F with a provision for comments.

Sowder, J.T. 1998. “What are the ‘Math Wars’ in California All About? Reasons and Perspectives,” Phi Beta Kappa Invited Lecture; online as a 98 kB pdf at http://bit.ly/O6R9If, thanks to Professor Bowen Brawner of Tarleton State University.