|
The author of that letter is making a huge number of unsupported statements. Why should, for example, "I agitated the solution" lead to the writer having more of a claim on the results than "the solution was agitated"? It might or might not be true, but "because I think so" isn't a scientific reason. He's confusing correlation for causation -- there are more published cases of fabricated results, and more use of active voice, so active voice must be causing fabrication. Since I'm not aware of any proof that there is more fabrication of data going on -- it's entirely possible that it's merely being detected more often -- even that element of his correlation is questionable. Again, we have unsupported assertions. Then we have this: "The use of the passive voice encourages disciplined writing, cases must agree, tenses must be used correctly." By implication, active voice does not require discipline, cases need not agree, and tenses can, it appears, just be picked at random. I don't even know where to begin.
In short, the author of that letter is saying "passive voice is better because I said so." That's neither good science nor good writing.
|