Tweet
I appreciated Bryan Finlay's reply to my message about the
meaning of the word "NORMALIZATION", and I think it was useful for us
to be reminded that our language should be as much as possible explicit
and clear, to be understandable by the largest possible number of readers
with different backgrounds, although the need of synthesis often
prevents us from defining explicitly all the words and expressions we
use, and I am sure there's no way to avoid a large amount of implicit
concepts in any kind of communications (scientific papers included).
If I said to my wife that I AM PUTTING THE CUP CONTAINING COFFEE
IN SOLUTION INTO THE MICROWAVE OVEN, my wife would laugh at me. And the
same would happen if I used unduly and boringly explicit phrases in the
context of scientific communications.
Good writers or lecturers possess, I believe, the skill
to choose to be explicit whenever and only when the conveyed concepts
may be not familiar to any of the possible cathegories of readers or
listeners. On the other hand, they are master in the art of avoiding
wasting words whenever and only when the conveyed concepts may be
understood using standardized terminology and expressions.
I would add that probably the latter "art" is the most appreciated
and at the same time the most complex.
That's the reason why I wanted to know if my definition "A"
of the word "NORMALIZED" was widespread enough to have become a
standard definition: I need to use the concept of "normalized", according
to Def. A, in my next paper.
Paolo de Leva
meaning of the word "NORMALIZATION", and I think it was useful for us
to be reminded that our language should be as much as possible explicit
and clear, to be understandable by the largest possible number of readers
with different backgrounds, although the need of synthesis often
prevents us from defining explicitly all the words and expressions we
use, and I am sure there's no way to avoid a large amount of implicit
concepts in any kind of communications (scientific papers included).
If I said to my wife that I AM PUTTING THE CUP CONTAINING COFFEE
IN SOLUTION INTO THE MICROWAVE OVEN, my wife would laugh at me. And the
same would happen if I used unduly and boringly explicit phrases in the
context of scientific communications.
Good writers or lecturers possess, I believe, the skill
to choose to be explicit whenever and only when the conveyed concepts
may be not familiar to any of the possible cathegories of readers or
listeners. On the other hand, they are master in the art of avoiding
wasting words whenever and only when the conveyed concepts may be
understood using standardized terminology and expressions.
I would add that probably the latter "art" is the most appreciated
and at the same time the most complex.
That's the reason why I wanted to know if my definition "A"
of the word "NORMALIZED" was widespread enough to have become a
standard definition: I need to use the concept of "normalized", according
to Def. A, in my next paper.
Paolo de Leva