The Reading "The Chicago Guide To Communicating Science"

This article had some good points in it. One of them being the way that many people in technology write, the author mentions that scientists will often write rules and standards down, not really entertaining writing, it also does not allow room for imagination, which is always important in science. I agree with this part of the reading, it is still important to include raw data but allowing room for imagination is more important.
The author makes an important comment about the history of writings by scientists. One example being Francis Bacon. Basically Mr. Bacon said scientists should always write like robots, and to shed all of the fluff and to tell just the facts. It seems the author wants us scientists to write with less of a hard edge, and try to add a little more to allow for imagination. I like these ideas. But even with more descriptive writing a writing is nothing if it doesn't flow write. The author says you can do this by including more transition sentences. I believe that this falls in to the category of writing like a human and like a robot. All in all I liked what this author said about writing about things that are very dry. I believe that even scientists must have emotion's about their work. If they learned to express these feelings in their writing (in a human way) then I think more and more articles by scientists would be read by a greater audience, and this in turn would lead to more broad view points, some of them from different fields. Especially with the Internet being so big, just because a paper is on the net doesn't mean people will want to read it, or take anything away from it.