antennae vs antennas

[Phil Schappert]

On 20 Oct 1998 15:17:11 -0700, jmason at ink.org (Jim Mason) wrote:
>I must side with Jeff Glassberg on this one.  Effective PUBLIC communication
>on science requires reaching a common level of understanding with an economy
>of words.  I know that many on this list are justifiably proud of their
,,,snip...

It seems that I'm in this one for the "long haul"...

Jim,

Please understand that I too am a member of NABA (I belong to every
Lepidoptera organization that I can afford). My objections to Mr.
Glassberg's editorial have little to do with terminology. My main
objections are: 1) people are not stupid (in fact they're eager to
learn), 2) the suggestion that "scientists" use jargon to intimidate
amateurs is (personally) offensive (and untenable), and 3) that he
switches logic in midstream to suit his purpose. First he proposed
that the use of the more exact term (caterpillar) over the "fuzzy" one
(larva), then reversed that stand to justify the use of a more "fuzzy"
term (tongue) over the precise one (proboscis).

I think that everyone would agree that terminology, or jargon, is
difficult for anyone who is just entering into any field of interest
(regardless of what it is). We learn what we need to in order to enjoy
that field. But to suggest that I, as a scientist, use jargon to
intentionally intimidate people goes too far. I think Mr. Glassberg
owes scientists an apology here.

In addition to being a scientist I am also a teacher and, in my
experience, I have found that people are bright, intelligent and eager
to learn. How much they learn depends more on their level of interest
than it does on my ability as a teacher. My task, is to excite their
interest - I cannot learn for them but I can incite them to learn for
themselves. If your level of interest is simply to be able to identify
(e.g. list) a species that's one thing, but if you want to know the
answers to questions (e.g. why, how, what, etc.) then your level of
interest will determine how much terminology you learn.

My own case may be instructive. I am relatively new to natural history
and to Lepidoptera. I had little interest in the natural world until I
was in my late 20's. I began an undergraduate degree at age 30
intending to become an ornithologist. By the time I finished it, 4
years later, I was a "butterfly nut". I'm now 42, have completed a
doctorate, and study plant-insect interactions as a profession. My
level of interest requires that I know some things (and know where to
find other information when I need it) and, in a large sense,
determines my knowledge needs and the terminology associated with it.

Along the way I learned that communicating with scientists is easy but
communicating with non-scientists was a challenge. The first (and, in
my opinion, the most important) thing I learned about communicating
science to non-scientists is not to "dumb down" the subject - it
insults those who are interested in learning the subject!

>rather in "American Butterflies".  NABA is mainly concerned with
>popularizing butterflying, rather than with advancing the science of
>Entomology, and unnecessary jargon just gets in the way of that.  For the
>NABA audience, that column was right on the money.

Are you really saying that "popularizing butterflying" means that NABA
should protect its members from learning anything about their
interest? How does that old drug ad slogan go? ... a mind is a
terrible thing to waste!

>In addition, the 50 cent term often has a whimsical property that makes it
>more memorable to an outsider and I think this principle can be well
>illustrated by the following:  How many use the term "pulling tails" as
>opposed to "dissecting the genitalia"?  The first time I heard the former
>used in context I knew immediately what it meant and have retained that
>knowledge ever since.

Agreed. This "whimsical property" makes the use of alternative terms
an excellent teaching tool - you have "retained that knowledge ever
since" after all - but there's a difference between useful and
correct. Just because (and I quote Mr. Glassberg's editorial here)
"Nine-hundred ninety-five people, including all the children, will
answer "tongue"," does not make it so. A much better anology to use
for teaching the term "proboscis" is to call it a "straw" - your
students/listeners will have a better understanding of what a
proboscis really is and I bet they'll retain that knowledge for a long
time. "Tongue" is not an appropriate alternative term and would, I
suspect, interfere with their future learning.

>By the way, I do not subscribe to the News of the Lepidopterist's Society
>because it is more technical than I want to bother with.  I do not think
>this makes me a bad person, Mr. Schappert, or a congenitally lazy one, Mr.
>Plauzoles, just someone with a different level of interest.

This is your perogative of course but I think that you are equating
the News with the Journal. The News is as non-technical as it can be
because it's written by members of the Society, not scientists, just
people with an interest in their subject - it's a newsletter, not a
journal. The Journal is something else entirely and I agree that much
(not all, just much) of it contains articles that are very technical.
However, I know, from personal experience, that a lot of amateurs
appreciate the Journal as an opportunity to learn more about their
interest(s). I suspect that NABA members feel the same about American
Butterflies.

I do not recall saying anything that could be misconstrued as
suggesting that not being a member of the Lepidopterists' Society
makes you a "bad person". BTW, the only way to get the News and the
Journal is to be a member of the Society, you cannot subscribe to them
(I'm assuming you are not an institution!)

Phil

--
Dr. Phil Schappert
Zoology, University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712-1064
Office: 512-471-8240; Fax: 512-471-9651
Stengl - Lost Pines Biological Station: 512-237-3864
mailto:philjs at mail.utexas.edu
http://www.esb.utexas.edu/philjs