Sokol again, Drat!

[Greg Montalbano]

Andrew Dinn writes:
"...to use such terms where there is no underlying model, merely an analogy
or metaphor stretched well beyond its elastic limit."

--- Oh, PLEASE tell me we're not going back into that science terminology
vs. metaphor debate;  I believe it's been covered.

Listening to all these gripes about scientists writing & talking as if they
& they alone had the passkey to Dame Truth's bedchamber, I have to wonder why
this is so much more upsetting to you-all than when Christians, Republicans,
Vegetarians or Flat-Earthers behave the same way;  could it be that YOU ALSO,
deep down inside, think that science is the ONE TRUE ANSWER, and are hurt or
embarrassed when its representatives act in a less-than-exemplary manner?

Also, it should be remembered that each of those groups is composed of many
individuals  who, along with whatever links them to the rest of the group,
have a good deal of baggage that will manifest itself sooner or later
(is there such a thing as a TYPICAL pynchon-lister?  Is there any one of us
who could speak for ALL the others?).  There ARE some good science writers;
there are a lot of crummy ones.  How is this different from anything else?

To be sure, science is supposed to be concerned with discernable fact,
reproducible result, verifiable hypothesis;  this would lead us to expect
the proponents of science to express themselves more carefully.  But many of
the traits that make a good scientist (as opposed to technician) seem to
leave little or no room for whatever it takes to be a good communicator;
people like Sagan are the exception.  And people like Hawking prove that you
CAN be a good scientist and still want to be a poet --- but that trying to use
poetry in the service of science can be awkward for many hard-line types.