![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Unxpected 'side effect' of my years out of school:
Most science-specific information I absorb these days, I suck up (*shlorp*) from reading primary research articles; those beasts (which are often quite useful as sleeping aids, just so you know) strive to thoroughly explain relevant background publications, include exhaustive data analysis to promote the central hypothesis, and then provide intricate development of the authors' most preferred model. There isn't a single point of argument or assertion that is not foot-noted, cross-referenced, or explained by a figure.
Cue re-entry to school: I'm working through my virology (study of viruses) coursework, slogging through the assigned textbook readings. I find myself getting irritated with this textbook (only partly from the poor writing) and starting on a thorough disgruntlement. Why? The textbook is throwing assertions at me left and right, but it's not proving any of them. Nope, not a end-note, nary an explanation of a method employed, and no clues given as to how the presented information was obtained. Who are they fooling, I'm supposed to believe this shit when they don't back anything up? C'mon, who edited this piece of crap? Where'd it get published? I'm going to write the editor on this one!
*facepalm*
I don't believe my textbook, as I'm a bench-science headcase...
There is a reference list at each chapter end, but there's no foot/end-noting of anything. *sigh*
Edit: Using the active voice! No, that's not how scientists write. *grumble*
Edit2: Doesn't help that every illustration looks like slugs trying to mate with broccoli crowns. And those are supposed to be proteins? I'm not smoking enough...
Most science-specific information I absorb these days, I suck up (*shlorp*) from reading primary research articles; those beasts (which are often quite useful as sleeping aids, just so you know) strive to thoroughly explain relevant background publications, include exhaustive data analysis to promote the central hypothesis, and then provide intricate development of the authors' most preferred model. There isn't a single point of argument or assertion that is not foot-noted, cross-referenced, or explained by a figure.
Cue re-entry to school: I'm working through my virology (study of viruses) coursework, slogging through the assigned textbook readings. I find myself getting irritated with this textbook (only partly from the poor writing) and starting on a thorough disgruntlement. Why? The textbook is throwing assertions at me left and right, but it's not proving any of them. Nope, not a end-note, nary an explanation of a method employed, and no clues given as to how the presented information was obtained. Who are they fooling, I'm supposed to believe this shit when they don't back anything up? C'mon, who edited this piece of crap? Where'd it get published? I'm going to write the editor on this one!
*facepalm*
I don't believe my textbook, as I'm a bench-science headcase...
There is a reference list at each chapter end, but there's no foot/end-noting of anything. *sigh*
Edit: Using the active voice! No, that's not how scientists write. *grumble*
Edit2: Doesn't help that every illustration looks like slugs trying to mate with broccoli crowns. And those are supposed to be proteins? I'm not smoking enough...
