Metaphors and other "tricks" in scientific papers
In scientific papers (in my case it's usually in computer science) it seems to me that some techniques which help in explaining concepts and technology are not used that much.
For example a metaphor often helps one to understand abstract concepts. Not the most useful example but something like "Monads are like burritos, they are not plain, but something wrapped in something else".
Another such technique would be explaining a specific (and simple) case of something - and maybe a second and third case - only to reveal later on what they are actually specific cases of. By successfully following the simple examples and seeing what they have in common, it is then easier to get an intuition about what the abstraction is all about. As a bonus, it might also make studying the material more enjoyable because it just seems easier.
Now, I don't remember reading stuff like that all too often in scientific papers, but I often find them in online tutorials, blogs and such.
Is their use generally discouraged, and if so why?
I might be wrong in at least two ways:
- These "tricks" are used. I just don't see them.
- They have a disadvantage I did not think of. I just think they can be very beneficial, and the extra time spent reading is often worth it.
I think the online book Learn You a Haskell for Great Good! does most of the things I mean. It also includes some jokes and funny drawings which are not what I'm talking about.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/26545. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
2.
The one fundamental rule in scientific writing is clarity. Analogies, metaphors, and other figures of speech are never clear in their meaning but open to interpretation.
When I say, for example, that a cell in biology is "like a power plant that burns fuel to gain energy" then that analogy will give you a completely wrong picture of what goes on in a cell. Some metaphors and analogies have even stifled scientific progress for decades, such as the view of the human psyche as a steam engine (Freud) or as a computer.
1.
For that reason, reputable scientists avoid the use of analogies and metaphors and reputable journals discourage them.
Science instead uses its scientific terminology and requires the reader to make the effort and work for their understanding. Science is not for the mentally lazy.
Figures of speech are closely related to clichés. Like metaphors and similes, figures of speech provide a writer with a colourful or forceful means to draw attention to a particular point but should be avoided in academic writing. (from What to avoid in formal writing)
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/26553. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
There are two aspects to writing style: there is what does the best job of explaining a concept, and there are the shibboleths that determine if a certain group is going to accept the document. Unfortunately, when submitting a document for publication, you have to consider both how stylistic decisions affect comprehension and what shibboleths affect publishing decisions.
The use of analogies to explain concepts is great for comprehension. Their use is not a "trick". It is standard practice for effective exposition. All good popular science that I have seen uses analogies for effective exposition.
However, the academic profession is plagued with shibboleths. One very common shibboleths is that works should not be "popular" in orientation or style. They are supposed to talk only to the in crowd. Being incomprehensible to the general public is a sign that you are a member of the academic club, that you have paid your dues.
Might the use of analogies to explain concepts make your paper sound too "popular" for an academic journal? Maybe. Such prejudices are not universal, nor are they consistent. As with any other publication, it pays to spend some time to get a feel for the tone of the publication you want to submit too. If other papers in that publication use the same devices, you should be fine.
Another reason that you may find few uses of analogy in scientific paper is a cognitive bias called "the curse of knowledge". The curse of knowledge is a bias which makes it difficult for us to understand how other people could possible not understand a concept once we understand it ourselves. Even if we learn a concept ourselves by way of analogies, once it has clicked in our brains, we recall it by its formal name alone, and it ceases to occur to use that anyone might need the same analogy we learned from in order to understand the point. Indeed, the analogy can now seem an unnecessary circumlocution that simply slows down explanation.
Someone suffering from the curse of knowledge is unlikely to turn to an analogy to explain something because it is unlikely that it will occur to them that it needs to be explained. The lack of analogies in many scientific papers may therefore be due purely to the curse of knowledge.
The good popular science writers may simply be those who still recognize when a concept needs to be explained (even when they have internalized it themselves) and can come up with an appropriate analogy to explain it.
Unless you have to suppress you analogies to pass the shibboleths of the journal you are submitting to, therefore, the apt use of analogies to explain key concepts in your paper is a very good thing.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads