I finished my poster today for the annual arctic LTER meeting next weekend (and yes, I did use standard error bars to emphasize small differences). I'm quite pleased with the product - graphs and pictures attractively spaced, my standby comic-sans font to make it approachable. I'm better at doing color schemes than science.

I finally have a product to show for the hours of mind-numbing lab and field work I've done over the last 9 months. This poster, with it's bar graphs and light curves, allows me to make several (small) statements of truth about the world. Which made me wonder: are there fundamental differences in the way writers and scientists understand the world?

Writers of fiction, poetry, memoir, etc. depend on their emotions, instincts and other sentiments to interpret the world. No replication, no attempt at objectivity, which science at least attempts. Science, at least good science, doesn't take fleeting emotions and publish them as universal truths. But maype all of this is OK as long as one doesn't pretend to be the other.

And what difference will my little truths about the world make when no-one is even going to look at my poster after being in meetings and listening to talks all day? I would worry about this more, but the truth is I'll be soaking in hot springs in Albequerque next weekend, and the little life discoveries that I've missed in the lives of 4 dear girlfriends will leave room for thoughts of little else.