Name
(99014389)
The Evidence: Empirical Data1
Instructions: The sentences from the following paragraph have been scrambled—
taken out of the paragraph and listed in a new order. Reassemble the
paragraph, attempting to match the writers’ original text.
In our world of scientific understanding, engineers and scientists
pursue truths external to us.
In a sense technical writing is transparent;
It is always apparent that the documents designed by technicians,
engineers, and scientists are very evidence oriented.
It is bone dry if we don’t see the music in it, but the music is in the
eye of the beholder.
The poet is just as likely to concern himself or herself with what is
internal to us.
In the huge variety of the technical documents—whether they are field
reports, R& D reports, maintenance reports, procedures, proposals,
environmental impact statements, or any of dozens of other—there is a
common thread.
People often say that technical writing is “dry.”
They are data based.
that is why it is dry.
It lacks color because color may confuse the truth of the evidence we
present.
Instructions: Insert paragraph indentions where needed in the following text.
This difference in perceptions is quite significant and very much
influences the methods of technical writing. Do not think, however, that
it is simply a matter of style. Evidence is tantamount to truth for the
scientific disciplines. It is interesting to note that “truths”—mathematical
truths, for example—suggest a larger issue. The larger question concerns
knowledge itself and whether truths of any kind are true of the world or
whether they are only our internal fictions that help us maintain our
sanity by creating order out of chaos. Two historical figures are well
1
Taken from David Rigby, Technical Document Basics: For Engineering Technicians and Technologists
(Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001), 19-23
1
Name
(99014389)
known for their thoughts concerning this issue: Rene Descartes (1596–
1650) and David Hume (1711–1776). Descartes essentially argued that
what is true is in the eye of the beholder; truth is in us. This idea makes
for great poetry, but it also makes life difficult for the scientist. Descartes’
concept was called idealism, a term unrelated to “high ideals,” the
meaning we assign to the term today. The world is our idea of it, he
explained. We do not really know the world; we only perceive it. This
matters because the problem of our limited understanding is real enough
even if it is an impractical world view for scientific inquiry. We really do
not see much more than what our humble resources allow us. a typical
satellite infrared photograph reveals a great deal about what we see and
cannot see What we see is such a small aspect of our universe that it is
indeed a mere idea of the world. Our vision, never mind our intelligence,
is the merest wink on the electromagnetic spectrum, as we well know.
Descartes’ ideas were not to go unchallenged, of course. The age of
science was beginning, and the business of learning the truths of our
universe was underway. It was not a scientist, however, but another
philosopher who challenged the Descartian (called Cartesian) reasoning.
The Englishman David Hume argued that truth is in the world and we
can know it. Let’s not talk nonsense, he argued. If you pick up two of
Newton’s apples and add two more you will have four. Furthermore,
according to Hume, you will always have four if you have two and add
two. The truth is absolute and we can know it by looking at the concrete
facts (data or evidence). Like Hume, scientists today give much
importance to evidence. We accept the evidence. The data are everything.
This is an accepted basis for our reasoning in science. We begin with
evidence, not with ghosts or devils. We begin with data, not with UFOs or
Sasquatch. Scientists want the facts—and the numbers. This belief that
there are realities and truths in the world is called empiricism. hence the
term empirical data. The influence of this brand of reasoning has been
profound for several hundred years. We have become empirical. We
expect evidence; we expect demonstrations of truths. The empirical shift
has been slow in some ways, but it is often dramatic. Notice the
illustration of the unicorn. It comes from an early zoology book—called a
Bestiary—written for Louis XIV, the Sun King (1638-1715). The textbook
goes into great detail about this fabled character. Of course, the unicorn
2
Name
(99014389)
never existed, but Louis, who sent many a rake off to the dungeons,
probably never doubted the knowledge of his court surgeon who
assembled the book. Why? Because this text predates the empirical
mentality, the prove-it spirit of our age. A hundred years later the court
surgeon would have been sent to the guillotine as a charlatan. The least
Louis could have done was ask about the webbed feet.
Xxxxxxxxxxx for xxxxxxx, within a xxxxxxx xxxxx, xxxxxxx xxxx
xxxxxxxxx with xxxxxxxx, along with the xxxxxxxxxx to xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxx in a xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx xxx. The xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx
of xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx in xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xx xxxxx among the xxx
xxxxx of the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and the xxxxxxxxxx who xxxxx xxxxxxxx
with xxxx. xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx as xxx xxxxxxx of the xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxx (and xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx for xxxxxxxx) in
xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx. After Xxxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxx
xxxx to the Xxx Xxxxx, for almost xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx the xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxx xxxxxxxxx without any xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx.
Xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx in xxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxx, and
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx, but xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx
the xxxxxxxx of the xxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx the xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx the
xxxxxxxx of xxxxxxx. Xxxxxx the xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx on a xxxx
xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx. In 1768 the xxxxx of the xxxxxx xxxxxxx of
Xxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx on the Xxxxxxxxx, a xxxx xxxx
xxxxxxx xxxxxx-xxxxx xxx on a xxxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxx xxxxxx from xxxx
to xxxxx. Xxxxx the xxxxx xxxxxxxx, xx xx a xxxxxxxxxx of the xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxx-xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx a xxxxxxxxxx xxxx
of xxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxx to the xxxx. The Xxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx xxx
xxxxxxxxx the xxxx of xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx and xxx xxxxxxxxxxxx. xxxxx
xxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx on xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx and xxxxx
xxxx for the xxxxxxxxxx, the xxxxxxxx, and the xxxxxxxxxx. The xxx
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx the xxxxxxx with xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
xxx of the xxxxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxx over xxxxxxx
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx during the xxxxxxx. Xxx xxxxxxxx
xxxxxx from Xxxxx xxxxxxxxx to xxxxxxxx—from xxxxxxxxxxxx to
xxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxx, the xxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx by
the xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx of the xxxxx of the xxx. Xxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxxxx often xxx to xxxxxxxx as the xxxxxxxxx
3
Name
(99014389)
xxxx by xxxxx. The xxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxx
xxxxx.
Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx’x xxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxx
xx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxxxxxx. Xxx
xxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx. Xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx
xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx’x xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx xxxx
xxx xxxxxxxxx. Xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx xx xxxx xx xxxxxxxx, xx
xxxxxxxx, xxx xx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxx. Xx xxx
xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx’x xxxx-xxxx xxxxxx xx xxx XXX
Xxxxxx xxxxx xx 1831. Xx xxxxxxxxx x xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx xxx xxxxxx,
xxx xxx xxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxx. Xx xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx
xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx
xxxx xx xxxxx xxx xxx xxx xx xxxxx. xxx xxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx
xxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxx xx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx, xx xxxxxxxx xxxxx.
xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx xx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xx
xxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx. Xxx xx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xx xx xxxxxx
xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xx x xxx xx xxxx xx xxxxx x
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx x xxxxxxxx. Xx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xx xx xxx x
xxxxx xxxxxxxxx xx xx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx. xxx xxxxxxxx xx
xxxxxxxxxx, xxx xx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx
xxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxx xx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx. Xx xxx xxx xxxxxx xx xxxxx xx xxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxx xxxx.
xxx xxxxxxxx xx xxx xxx xx xxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxx xx x
xxxxxxxx xxx xx xxxxxxxxx xx xxxxx xx xxx. Xx xx xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xx xxxx Xxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxx. Xx xx xxx xxxxxxxxxxx
xxx xxxxx x xxxxxxxx xxxxx xx xxx xxx, xx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxx
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxx xxxx xxxxx xxx xx
xxxxxxxxxx xx xx, “Xx’x xxx xx xxxx xxxx.”
The Writer: Objectivity as a Style2
Instructions: Compare Rigby’s notion of style in technical communication with Jones’
notion. How are they similar and how are they different?
2
Page 25-26
4
Name
(99014389)
There is another aspect of the empirical issue that we must consider.
Amassing data is our responsibility as we investigate or research a
project we intend to write. We must also consider the writer. There is a
style to technical writing—the one we bluntly called dry. For us, style is a
tactical consideration, because of the distinction between objectivity and
subjectivity. To be objective is to think without bias. To be subjective is
to think with the bias of emotions and values. The objective observer is
open to the truth perceived in all experience. The subjective observer
brings perceptions to the way in which experience is understood. The
objective observer experiences conditions; the subjective observer
conditions experiences.
Objectivism and subjectivism go hand in hand with empiricism and
idealism. If we accept the empirical data around us, we can understand
it correctly only if we do not blunder into the data with misconceptions,
false assumptions, or any other distortions of the evidence. Of course, by
implication, we can create or at least influence what we construct—but
we assume that we can correct our all-too-human ways. We assume we
can objectify; we can study the “object” without bias.
Notice the drawing of the canals of Mars. The first drawing of Mars in
Percival Lowell’s journals dates from 1904. An Italian astronomer,
Giovanni Schiaparelli (1835-1910), had mapped the canals as early as
the 1880s. Even with far better telescopes (18- and 24-inch diameters),
Lowell persuaded himself that he was seeing canals too. The photographs
he gathered do not suggest canals to me; I do not “see” what he saw. I
am more objective and more empirical, and I am under no persuasions to
see anything in particular. The Mariner and Viking missions, moreover,
did not reveal any canals either.
Technical writing curiously accepts both of the traditional perceptions
of human knowledge that Descartes and Hume proposed. Evidence is
everything. Truth is out there and it is available to us. But, alas, we must
guard against distorting it, so we must keep ourselves out of the analysis
or else we do run the risk of creating a world of our own ideas. As a
result, tech writing has a noticeable neutral style that helps maintain the
objectivity. Furthermore, it is seldom written in the first-person style.
If we write as though our writing is nothing more than a transparent
lens for observing the data, we are using the tech writing style. In the
5
Name
(99014389)
end, our premise is both empirical and Cartesian. Why? Because the two
truths coexist. We are operationally empirical. It is a practical way for us
to be. But when Descartes argues that the truth of our ideas in internal
or in our minds, we do not blindly dismiss him. The science of
psychology, although it did not develop for well over two hundred years
after the time of Descartes, is true to Cartesian reality. The
psychoanalyst’s couch is the ongoing demonstration of how real our
psychological world is for us. It is real enough to control what we think
we know to be true.
In our technical writing, then, we must balance this subjective force
with objectivity. We must be strict in vocabulary and neutral in tone, we
must seldom refer to ourselves, and we must control every bias possible.
The evidence and whatever truth we can ascertain from it are the only
concern.
The Researcher: Objectivity as Truth3
Instructions: Identify elements of cohesion and coherence in the following paragraphs.
Alternatively, following Christensen, identify the structure of the
paragraphs.
We can look at the matter of objectivity in several exemplary cases so
that you can see the extraordinary significance the objective method has
as a feature of scientific reasoning. First, consider Galileo (1564–1642).
Galileo gathered evidence for the heliocentric (sun-centered) concept of
our solar system. Prior to his time, all Europe believed in the truth of the
geocentric idea, that is, that the Earth was the center of the universe.
This notion fit conveniently into religious perceptions upheld by the
Roman Catholic church and was thought to be more or less consistent
with the Book of Genesis insofar as humankind appears to be at the
center of God’s Universe. Everyone in Europe essentially assumed that
geocentric astronomy was true.
Galileo was prompted to study the night sky because of the invention
of the telescope. He observed that the stars traverse the sky in a fixed
pattern but that the paths of the planets are eccentric and far more
complicated. In time he realized also that the apparent orbits did not
3
Page 27-29
6
Name
(99014389)
function in the geocentric, Earth-centered concept that everyone
accepted. His evidence demonstrated the heliocentric theory that the sun
was the center of the solar system. Rather like Lowell, he was under the
influence of an earlier observer. Copernicus had already proposed the
heliocentric model. Galileo’s telescope allowed him to gather the
evidence—and to be the first human being to see the rings of Saturn as
well.
Earlier we spoke of the issue of bias and a scientist’s preference for
evidence, and for the objective viewpoint. Beyond mere personal
perceptions, objectivity helps us overcome not only our individual
prejudices but also entire systems of logic that our culture constructs
that may be in error! Objectivity, then, is a path to perception that may
help us see beyond even the vast cultural belief structures in which we
live. The discovery of the heliocentric solar system is a demonstration of
the value of evidence.
Consider also the case of Louis Pasteur (1822-1892). Until the midnineteenth century the “science” of medicine was a fairly sorry state.
Disease was little understood, and popular theories of the day were
wildly off the mark. Not too many years before Pasteur was born, many
people, including George Washington, were more or less bled to death in
the name of science. The doctors of the day were not seen as quacks,
however, because everyone believed what they were taught or told about
yellow bile and black bile and many other nonempirical ideas of the time.
Pasteur inherited this grim state of affairs just as Galileo had inherited
geocentric astronomy. Indeed, in a letter to his father, Pasteur’s wife
wrote, “Louis…is always preoccupied with his experiments. You know
that the ones he is undertaking this year will give us, should they
succeed, a new Newton or Galileo.” She was, indeed, correct.
Pasteur was an early example of a funded researcher. He was paid by
the European brewing industry to study the causes of deterioration and
souring in fermented beverages. His work led to the process of
pasteurization of course, but that was incidental to the real discovery of
the astounding truth of microbial theory. Until Pasteur’s day, cleanliness
was not a consideration socially, scientifically, or otherwise. Pity the soul
who had cause to be in a hospital of the time. There was little likelihood
that doctors would wash their hands between visits to patients. The
7
Name
(99014389)
notion that microscopic organisms were the causes of disease simply did
not exist—until Pasteur presented his first paper on microbial behavior
in 1857 before the Paris Academy of Sciences. This theory was
challenged by the old school, and Pasteur was denied membership in the
academy of sciences twice and almost did not receive acceptance the
third time around! In fact, he was barely voted in—and only because of
the merits of his earlier work on crystals.
The microscope contributed to Pasteur’s ability to gather evidence. He
adopted the microscope early on in his career and used it to demonstrate
that air contains, microbes, which was one of the many major firsts in
his research. Optics—the telescope and the microscope—certainly
changed our understanding of tour sciences as dramatically as
electronics altered our understanding in the twentieth century. In
Pasteur’s case he unseated hundreds of years of hopelessly misguided
medical science. Objectivity and empirical evidence were his tools. He did
not impose any truths on his research; the research revealed the truths
to him.
8