THERE is a sense of excitement in books of this type: they are accessible to
nonscientists without sacrificing essential rigour.
Not exact matches
I'm going to try to be more humble by also listening to more
nonscientists and by thinking about what they have to say
without trying to judge or divide people.
I have actually had science writers who are
nonscientists say that they felt their status as laymen made it easier to relate to their audience, while I have had science journalists who are scientists claim they don't see how one could be effective
without experience as a scientist.
I understand this perception and it's not
without some basis in the actual reality of how
nonscientists argue.
To cite the twentieth - century instrumental record,
without mentioning all the melting — as even the occasional scientist may do before general audiences — is often suspected of being special pleading, trying to confuse
nonscientists with carefully selected facts, what lawyers with a losing case sometimes attempt to do with juries.