Promoting a Necessary Myth: The Arrangement of a Scientific Paper

Gross, A. G. (1996). The arrangement of a scientific paper. In The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 85-96.


Induction is a fallacy.  Gross argues that we recognize causes based on effects.  Thus, inductive reasoning becomes a circular argument in that in one case, a certain effect indicates a certain cause; therefore, one can continue to expect that cause to precede a similar effect (assuming uniformity).

I know... it makes my head spin too.  Here's the example that Gross uses: Everyday a man goes to feed a chicken.  The chicken correctly argues that if the man cares for the chicken, then the man will feed the chicken.  The problem however, lies in assuming that because the man feeds the chicken, he cares for it.  One day, the man will not come to feed the chicken, but to kill it for dinner.

So, what does this have to do with scienctific writing and the scientific paper?  Everything.  Last post, I talked about Medawar's assertion that the scientific paper is fraudulent and misleading.  His argument?  Scientists have an agenda of sorts, we don't actually use pure induction, but rather plan and execute experiments and observations with a hypothesis in mind.

Gross addresses this very argument in this chapter however, proposing that whatever developments have been made in the philosophy of science, the structure of the scientific article will remain the same to uphold the myth of induction.  He bases this theory on that of Levi-Strauss, who analyzes myths as "a logical model capable of overcoming a [fundamental] contradiction." (Gross, 1996, p. 95).

What is the fundamental contradiction in science?  Perhaps it is between theory and reality.  Even so, I think I would describe it like this:

 The inductive process tries to take little pieces of reality and put them together into new knowledge, whereas deduction begins with a series of simplified assumptions to create a "perfect world."  Experiments are analogous to induction; the scientist is trying to isolate random facts to later reassemble. Theory is analogous to deduction; the theorist creates a scholarly model of the way the world should work.  Bacon and Euclides are emblematic of these two realms and the scientific paper mediates between the two.

How does the scientific paper mediate?  I argue that in reality, the scientific paper combines deduction and induction.  Truthfully, this is what I've been teaching my students for the past few years.  The introduction serves to establish context and explain the underlying assumptions and theories that frame the proposed experiments.  Later, the discussion takes the myriad of results (isolated facts) and pulls them together into a solid argument.  Deduction followed by induction.

According to Gross, the mediating nature of the scientific paper requires that the structure remain constant.  Otherwise, the philosophy of science (we never really know) gets mixed up with the practice of science, and confidence in that practice is shaken.

Come to think of it... that's a pretty scary argument.  Do we have too much confidence in that practice?  Is this why many non-scientists distrust the practice of science - because of its ever-changing nature?  In this light, perhaps we should reconsider Medawar's arguments.

Especially since scientists neither read nor write scientific articles in the order they are structured.