Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

[Phys-L] Re: Charts or Graphs, and other Excel stuff



"> Again, I agree. And that is actually the problem. We scientists are in
the minority. We are using software designed for the business world.
They completely dwarf us. They are defining the words. If we walked
into the restaurant and ordered beef or pork, we would be the ones not
using the accepted terms. And that is the root of my question. Are we
going to accept the fact Excel and other spreadsheets, which are
designed for business use, are changing the words our science students
are using to describe science?"


So why not use software written by and for scientists? Write some
yourself, as did Peter Scott before microsoft?

I'll bet his is free. Did you check his down loads?

Earlier we used Gnuplot and a NLLS fit from some U. back east that David
Belanger organized when he taught the Advanced Lab. It was free and
resident in the classes' Athena lockers I managed.

bc, who never experienced charts, etc. while at UCSC, and is pleased to
find he not the only prescriptivist left in the world.


p.s. Neither kaleidoGRAPH nor GRAPHICALanalysis use the words chart or
trendline.


Michael Edmiston wrote:
John Denker said:


My turn to be crabby: Please use the term _spreadsheet_ not
"Excel".


I understand, and agree. However, I explicitly said Excel because that
is what all students have because Bluffton University provides it to
them as part of the "technology fee" each student pays. Additionally, I
am not sure if all spreadsheet software uses the same wording. Perhaps
some spreadsheets do call graphs graphs. I am specifically criticizing
the wording in Excel, although I suspect all competitors are nearly
force to be virtual clones of Excel if they have any hope of getting any
market share. So I suspect all spreadsheet software uses the word
chart, but I don't know that; I only know Excel.


I find the following analogy helps get the point across: If you
walk into a restaurant, even a non-fancy restaurant, you will
embarrass yourself if you order a serving of cow or pig. The
accepted terms are beef and pork.


Again, I agree. And that is actually the problem. We scientists are in
the minority. We are using software designed for the business world.
They completely dwarf us. They are defining the words. If we walked
into the restaurant and ordered beef or pork, we would be the ones not
using the accepted terms. And that is the root of my question. Are we
going to accept the fact Excel and other spreadsheets, which are
designed for business use, are changing the words our science students
are using to describe science?


I say to the students: Here is how I recommend doing it: ______
Why should you call a graph a graph, and a chart a chart? Please
don't think you are doing it to please me. You should do it out
of respect for yourself. I assume *you* want to use the right
terminology, so *you* don't embarrass yourself. You are paying me
to help you with this.


Again I agree, and this is exactly what I do. But the students are not
inclined to believe it. Either Edmiston is wrong, or scientists in
general are wrong. Just look at what the "whole world" is doing. The
"whole world" (i.e. the business world) has started calling graphs
charts, etc.

I spoke to one of my mathematics colleagues. They aren't happy either
that business software is redefining words their math students are
using.

Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics and Chemistry
Bluffton University
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu