Along with the vast majority of his philosophical tradition, and in contrast with Descartes, Gassendi distinguishes between inanimate bodies on the one hand and plants, animals, and human beings on the other. The process of generation crucially requires powers that cannot be reduced to the powers of atoms taken singly or woven together into concretions. These powers are either emergent or divinely super-added to certain systems of matter; Gassendi, as we shall see, offers two alternate cosmologies grounding each of the two possibilities. Thus, the programmatic atomist claims that Gassendi advances at the beginning of the Syntagma are implicitly restricted to the nonliving. He does indeed hold that there are no forms or qualities beyond ways of describing complex local motions. But he does not think of generation as a matter of qualitative change any more than Aristotle did, and hence generation is not intended to fall under the scope of claims about the reduction of qualities to local motion.

Similarly, the sentient powers of animals are either emergent or superadded. Indeed, they derive from the same seeds that are crucial for generation, seeds endowed with a sensory capacity and a vis seminalis. Animal souls have powers beyond sensation and generation, of course: In addition to providing the power of locomotion, they contribute powers shared by plants and animals such as growth. However, I limit my discussion to two powers, generation and sensation.

Pierre Gassendi was born – as Pierre Gassend, son of the peasant farmer Anthoine Gassend and his wife Françoise Fabry – on January 22, 1592, in the village of Champtercier, near Digne in Provence. This was the year of Montaigne's death. He attended the Collège de Digne from 1599 to 1607 – where he learned, primarily, Latin – and the Faculté d'Aix beginning in 1609, studying philosophy with Père Philibert Fesaye. He also followed a course of theology that included Greek and Hebrew. Fesaye was a Carmelite, and the ratio studiorum of the Carmelites refers to Aquinas, Toletus, Averroes, and the Carmelite doctor John Bacon or Baconthorp. Baconthorp attacked intelligible species; denied the univocity of being; held that universals precede the action of the intellect and that external objects are intelligible per se although understanding them requires an agent intellect; equated essence with quiddity; and maintained a formal distinction between essence and existence. Gassendi adopted none of these doctrines, save the rejection of intelligible species.

Gassendi was recognized as an exceptional student from early on, and received his doctorate in theology in 1614, at the age of 24, at which time he took the four minor orders of the church and became the theological canon of Digne Cathedral. He kept this job until he was promoted to provost in 1634, after some legal wrangling. In 1616, Gassendi was ordained to the priesthood.

This book is both an interpretation of Gassendi's central metaphysical, epistemological, and natural philosophical views and an advertisement for their philosophical and historical interest. Historians of seventeenth-century philosophy can usually tell you that Gassendi was an atomist, an empiricist, or a mitigated skeptic, as well as an opponent of Aristotle and Descartes. They might add that he attempted to revive Epicureanism. However, few are likely to have any clear conception of the theses Gassendi articulates, the arguments he offers in their defense, or the systematic connections between them. This is an unfortunate situation, and I aim to remedy it.

There are at least two reasons why those of us who are interested in early modern philosophy and natural philosophy need to know more about Gassendi. The first is widely recognized. Gassendi's influence and the importance he was accorded by his peers and close contemporaries is unquestionable. Gassendi was a central figure in seventeenth-century philosophy and, as such, very important for the development of modern philosophical thought. He knew and was known by such figures as Descartes and Hobbes and is important for understanding Leibniz, Locke, and Newton. Were one a seventeenth-century intellectual who found Cartesianism unacceptable, Gassendi's philosophy was the obvious alternative.

Less well known, however, is the philosophical interest of Gassendi's system. Gassendi attempts to solve central problems besetting causal theories of perception; distinguishes perceptual from nonperceptual cognition in a way that idea theorists typically failed to do; argues for an explicitly antireductionist version of the mechanical philosophy; presents a radical account of the source of creaturely activity; and more.

At one time, scientists thought they worked in a rather secluded realm. They might continue at their work for years without the outside world paying much attention. But now, magazines, newspapers, and television and radio stations are hungry for scientific news. The most unassuming scientist might suddenly find that his subject matter has become a “hot topic” and that the media is pounding at the door for comments and information. In these instances, the scientist will find his speaking skills immediately displayed to the vast public.

No matter what subject reporters are covering, their questions usually boil down to, “What's new in your field?” and “Why is it important?” They are, in other words, coming with essentially the same questions as an audience does for a talk. Consequently, many of the structural tools used in preparing and delivering a presentation are equally useful in this new context.

At the same time, the media interview is an information exchange like no other. The relatively large audience is one obvious difference between a media presentation and the average talk. Another is that in a media interview, one's words are recorded for all time. The way a speaker's words are interpreted and conveyed to the audience is usually not his decision, but someone else's.

Example 1: For the Laboratory Audience

The enzyme Tdp1 is considered to be responsible for repairing damage to topoisomerase 1. Its substrate in this damage is 3′ trapped DNA. The substrate in oxidative damage is also 3′ trapped DNA.

This made us wonder: Is Tdp1 also functional in the repair of oxidative damage?

Example 2: For a Departmental Audience

We now have clear evidence of antiidiotype immune responses in patients with follicular lymphoma, following vaccination with our idiotype vaccine. Despite this, we continue to see some cross-reactive antiidiotype immune responses in our in vitro assays.

To demonstrate that our idiotype vaccine truly has clinical efficacy, we have to demonstrate at least two important points. First, that in these patients who receive the idiotype vaccine, we see some improvement in their disease status, in terms of either shrinkage or complete resolution of their disease. And number two, in those patients where we actually see some change or improvement in their disease status, we can correlate that with some specific antiidiotype immune responses.

With regard to the first point, we have been able to demonstrate something significant in newly diagnosed patients with follicular lymphoma. These patients have undergone conventional chemotherapy, have some molecular evidence of residual disease, and have received our vaccine therapy. We have now demonstrated that they have been able to achieve a molecular remission in some cases, but only after they received the idiotype vaccine.

In the Hour Glass Format, the Main Question and Take Home Message act as bookends for the Data Section. This section represents the bulk of presentation time and should include all findings, data points and slides.

Because presentation time is of the essence, the speaker must take great care in selecting images. They must be clear, accurate and most representative of the work under discussion. Unfortunately, most speakers are not particularly discriminating at this stage of preparation. Their impulse is to include every piece of data, perhaps on the assumption that a density of information indicates thorough science.

Alas, the opposite is true. Data not tied directly to the Main Question are perplexing for the audience and run the risk of both clouding their understanding and overloading the talk. In other words, too much data make the speaker and the presentation look sloppy and unorganized. The same selectivity required for the Take Home Message and Main Question applies to choosing images.

The Money Slide

We recognized the need for this preparation step after Dr. Robert Massey at the National Institutes of Health relayed a horror story.

Most of our clients report that the Question and Answer Period is as fearsome as giving the presentation itself. Even the kindest question can cause a presenter to scramble for the proper reply, often making him feel silly and self-conscious in the process. Not to mention those less than respectful questions that are the stuff of a speaker's nightmares. All in all, the question and answer session can seem like “open season” on the poor speaker, who may feel prone and vulnerable.

To repeat, that is how the question period can seem to be. But while the speaker may be alone, there is no need for him to feel defenseless. Managed well, this part of the presentation can conclude his time “in the spotlight” on a positive, even satisfying note. What follows are a few strategies to increase the odds of a good Question and Answer (Q & A) experience, while protecting the speaker from verbal attack.

Laying the Groundwork for Q & A

There is no need to wait until the questions start flying to deal with them. The speaker can take the first steps toward managing the question period in the talk itself.

Above all, the Main Question must be unmistakably clear. Come Q & A, a clear Main Question sets the parameters for the day's discussion.

The seventh and final step in preparation is to decide on the title. And titling a talk requires a different approach from titling a paper.

A title's function in a paper is twofold. The first is to identify the subject and address the major research finding. The second is to act as a reliable “magnet” for internet or other searches (such as Medline). The greater the number of pertinent words in the title, the more matches the search will produce. Consequently, a writer might be rewarded by making the title both lengthy and nearly exhaustive in its description of the paper's content.

When it comes to a presentation title, however, length and exhaustiveness are liabilities. This is mainly due to the fact that the “search mechanisms” associated with a talk are quite different. Presentation titles are most likely posted in a conference schedule, calendar, dedicated flyer or email. Under these circumstances, attendees assume that the title represents only the highlights of the subject, not its every facet. The title, therefore, should reflect only those highlights. The audience expects to hear the specifics in the talk itself.

A title for a talk also needs to attract attention, for the obvious reason that it usually competes with other presentations.

We often ask our students, “What's wrong with scientific talks?” They invariably respond with variations of: They are boring; they are too complicated; they are hard to follow; the speakers have too much information for the time allowed; they do not recognize the different knowledge levels of the audience; they do not look at the audience; they talk too fast or too softly; they sound bored with their work.

Conversely, we are told that good presentations are clear, concise, and focus on a few key points and that good speakers are enthusiastic and help the audience to become engaged. We have seen many accomplished presenters ourselves, and it is truly inspiring to see science communicated well.

Still, as anyone who has taken the podium has discovered, simply telling oneself, “Be clear” or “Be enthusiastic” rarely assures success. It is easy to despair over not being a “born presenter.” Many struggle because they think they are too introverted, are not funny or because English is an alternative language for them. The truth is that there are very few natural presenters, and even they can benefit from technique. One's gregariousness could not matter less in this context; humor is irrelevant to scientific speaking; and nonnative English speakers actually have a few advantages over native English speakers.

As irresistible as it may be for a speaker to pack a lot of information into a short talk, the temptation is equally great when creating a poster. A presenter may think that a poster's modest dimensions cannot hold nearly enough data to explain her research. Her tendency, then, is to reduce the font of the text and the size of the images to compensate for the poster's spatial limits. The result is a forbiddingly detailed poster that few people will bother to examine. If a major challenge with a talk is time, then that for a poster is space.

Before tackling this spatial challenge, it is worth considering a poster's primary purpose: to facilitate networking with those in attendance. It should act as a springboard for interaction with other scientists, potential employers and peers. A poster can also open avenues for future discussion, thereby building personal and professional connections long after the poster session has ended. The success of a poster depends on how well it accomplishes these goals.

Organizing a Poster

A poster should attract the attention and curiosity of passersby, enticing them to stop and investigate further. Yet a poster cannot stand alone. Once it draws attention, the presenter is then in charge of illuminating its contents. Therefore, the function of the poster is to support the presenter's verbal description.

As nerve-racking as it can be to give a talk, the first few minutes pose the biggest hurdle for a presenter. When the beginning of the talk does not go well, the remainder, not to mention the question and answer period, can seem like an uphill battle. There is no substitute, then, for getting a presentation off to a good start.

If engaging the audience's full attention is a speaker's most important goal, then it is never too early to begin. Some speaking coaches suggest giving the audience a minute or two to “settle in” during opening remarks. A better plan is to begin the talk so strongly that the audience is immediately focused and engaged. The opening sentences of a presentation not only establish its tone, but also provide necessary background for all that will follow. They are too important to treat casually.

This stage of the preparation process is often the most difficult and time-consuming. And to make things more complicated, the beginning of the talk changes with every new audience. Finding the right “hook” can be a troublesome task, but there are practical tactics with which to engage the audience.

Common Ground

An audience may be intrigued by many things. They might be captivated by a speaker's enthusiasm or a mutual interest. But a talk should be more than merely interesting or entertaining.

Perhaps the following preparation process will look familiar to many speakers: After receiving an invitation to speak, the presenter chooses a title; writes the introduction; searches the data; sorts the slides; and finally, summarizes the conclusion points on a slide.

Scott Morgan used to prepare his talks this way. When he attended a presentation, he would hear the title, introduction, data and conclusion points, and assume they should be prepared in the same order.

But there are several drawbacks to this common strategy. First, there is probably more information to share than available speaking time in which to share it. For a speaker to fit her remarks into the allotted time, she must eliminate some interesting and perhaps essential facts. But perhaps the biggest drawback is that she drowns the talk's central point in the minutiae of excessive detail. As a result, the talk is longer and more detailed than an audience can readily accommodate. No wonder the list of common complaints about talks includes “too complicated” and “too much information.”

Mr. Morgan eventually realized that as linear as the preparation process seemed, his own groundwork was actually very different. It was also less time consuming.

As we have seen, presenting a talk well actually begins with the first step of preparation. The confidence that results from both having a clear message, and knowing how to guide listeners to it, is a major step toward success.

The many preparation steps involved in creating a presentation come together in the act of delivery. In this chapter, we look at some techniques that help a speaker confront the challenges of presenting, beginning with a nearly universal one: nervousness.

Stage Fright

The most common fear about giving a presentation revolves around fear itself. Many people wonder how the best public speakers overcome this fear – hoping, perhaps, that there is a magic pill to cure it. The unavoidable fact is that, when it comes to public speaking, nervousness never goes away entirely. However, as the Latin proverb says, “Our fears always outnumber our dangers.”

As of this writing, the authors have performed and presented for a combined total of nearly 50 years. Each has been told that he must be one of those “natural speakers.” Yet both still feel butterflies in the stomach before taking the podium. That is because standing in front of others always involves a degree of risk: that of making a mistake, of being judged, of a technological failure, and so forth.