Scientific experimental articles are modernist stories

Anatolii Kozlov; Michael T Stuart

doi:10.1007/s13194-024-00592-7

Scientific experimental articles are modernist stories

Anatolii Kozlov, Michael T Stuart

Philosophy

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

This paper attempts to revive the epistemological discussion of scientific articles. What are their epistemic aims, and how are they achieved? We argue that scientific experimental articles are best understood as a particular kind of narrative: i.e., modernist narratives (think: Woolf, Joyce), at least in the sense that they employ many of the same techniques, including colligation and the juxtaposition of multiple perspectives. We suggest that this way of writing is necessary given the nature of modern science, but it also has specific epistemic benefits: it provides readers with an effective way to grasp the content of scientific articles which increases their understanding. On the other hand, modernist writing is vulnerable to certain kinds of epistemic abuses, which can be found instantiated in modern scientific writing as well.

Original language	English
Article number	32
Number of pages	23
Journal	European Journal for Philosophy of Science
Volume	14
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-024-00592-7
Publication status	Published - 17 Jul 2024

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

10.1007/s13194-024-00592-7Licence: CC BY

Scientific experimental articles are modernist stories
© The Author(s) 2024
Final published version, 1.14 MBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{c89b5956d2e5403c92c0833c0623be53,

title = "Scientific experimental articles are modernist stories",

abstract = "This paper attempts to revive the epistemological discussion of scientific articles. What are their epistemic aims, and how are they achieved? We argue that scientific experimental articles are best understood as a particular kind of narrative: i.e., modernist narratives (think: Woolf, Joyce), at least in the sense that they employ many of the same techniques, including colligation and the juxtaposition of multiple perspectives. We suggest that this way of writing is necessary given the nature of modern science, but it also has specific epistemic benefits: it provides readers with an effective way to grasp the content of scientific articles which increases their understanding. On the other hand, modernist writing is vulnerable to certain kinds of epistemic abuses, which can be found instantiated in modern scientific writing as well.",

author = "Anatolii Kozlov and Stuart, {Michael T}",

note = "{\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2024.",

year = "2024",

month = jul,

day = "17",

doi = "10.1007/s13194-024-00592-7",

language = "English",

volume = "14",

journal = "European Journal for Philosophy of Science",

issn = "1879-4912",

publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Scientific experimental articles are modernist stories

AU - Kozlov, Anatolii

AU - Stuart, Michael T

PY - 2024/7/17

Y1 - 2024/7/17

N2 - This paper attempts to revive the epistemological discussion of scientific articles. What are their epistemic aims, and how are they achieved? We argue that scientific experimental articles are best understood as a particular kind of narrative: i.e., modernist narratives (think: Woolf, Joyce), at least in the sense that they employ many of the same techniques, including colligation and the juxtaposition of multiple perspectives. We suggest that this way of writing is necessary given the nature of modern science, but it also has specific epistemic benefits: it provides readers with an effective way to grasp the content of scientific articles which increases their understanding. On the other hand, modernist writing is vulnerable to certain kinds of epistemic abuses, which can be found instantiated in modern scientific writing as well.

AB - This paper attempts to revive the epistemological discussion of scientific articles. What are their epistemic aims, and how are they achieved? We argue that scientific experimental articles are best understood as a particular kind of narrative: i.e., modernist narratives (think: Woolf, Joyce), at least in the sense that they employ many of the same techniques, including colligation and the juxtaposition of multiple perspectives. We suggest that this way of writing is necessary given the nature of modern science, but it also has specific epistemic benefits: it provides readers with an effective way to grasp the content of scientific articles which increases their understanding. On the other hand, modernist writing is vulnerable to certain kinds of epistemic abuses, which can be found instantiated in modern scientific writing as well.

U2 - 10.1007/s13194-024-00592-7

DO - 10.1007/s13194-024-00592-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 39027364

SN - 1879-4912

VL - 14

JO - European Journal for Philosophy of Science

JF - European Journal for Philosophy of Science

IS - 3

M1 - 32

ER -