Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/26553
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

# 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](http://metaphors.iath.virginia.edu/metaphors/24583) (Freud) or as a [computer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind).

# 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](http://learnline.cdu.edu.au/studyskills/studyskills/aswhattoavoid.html))

Original score: 2