Let's talk about science!
Autor: Vitor Cano | Publicado: 2016-04-17T16:49:00-03:00


Hoje decidi fazer um texto mais elaborado sobre o papel do scientista na produção de conhecimento e os desafios que o modelo atual apresentam para a redação científica.&nbsp;



Subjectivity of science VS Scientific writing
Scientific knowledge is built on an empirical basis. This arises from the objectivity of the data generated by scientific methodology, which fosters trust in this empirical basis. However, although objective, that data may not be completely self-explanatory, so that conclusions can only be achieved through interpretation of the scientist.



This reveals the importance of the scientist's role in the construction of knowledge. So there are two main points related to scientific writing: i) the quality and relevance of the conclusions, which leads to scientific advancement, is related to the subjective interpretation of a human being; ii) there is an immense responsibility of the scientific community forward the acceptance or rejection of the conclusions of a scientist.



Considering the first point, it is clear that the preparation of the scientist to interpret the data is critical. In this sense, the viewing and interpretation of the data from an experiment by a newbie researcher will possibly be more superficial when compared to the conclusions of a researcher who have years of experience in the specific area of study. However, this leads to an important question that is the biased view at the empirical basis, since the interpretations of the scientist are strongly linked to their previous experiences.



Examples of revolutions in the laws of science that originated from different interpretations of the same empirical basis already known previously are not rare. Therefore, the interdisciplinary scientific study is part of an interesting way to build knowledge from different points of view, often complementary.



Many of Scientific Revolutions cited above did not occur quickly after the formulation of the conclusions of the researchers in question. On the contrary, often the conclusions that pointed to a different direction than usual for researchers in the field have suffered strong resistance to being accepted, if not rejected. This leads to the second point stated above: the responsibility of the scientific community towards conclusions of a research.



The importance of this for the scientific writing is evident. When you write an article based on data produced by an experiment, one must pay attention to the innovation that will lead to knowledge building in the area, however, the argument deriving from the experimental results should be very precise and strongly based on the existing knowledge, so that innovative conclusions can be accepted by the scientific community and contribute to the development of science.



So the scientific writing is complex and challenging since the organization and originality of the results and discussion of the text produced by the scientist are valued, but at the same time, it required a strong argumentative power based on the knowledge produced in the area in question.





Post Scriptum


Eu gosto&nbsp;muito da carreira acadêmica. Sempre sinto muito orgulho quando coloco meu avental/jaleco e vou para bancada conduzir algum experimento. Me empolga, ler, escrever e discutir sobre esse mundo tão divertido e importante que é o da ciência. Possivelmente voltarei a escrever mais sobre isso por aqui.

Postando ao som de A Proper Story e sentindo que superei muitos desafios acadêmicos na última semana, mas que ainda preciso dar conta de muitos outros nos próximos dias.