Recently chanced upon a discussion on Twitter about how to present science. The contention was whether writing a paper means telling a story or not. Physicists seemed to think that story is for people whose data is incomplete. That set me thinking.
I am a reader and teller and listener of stories. If there is no story it does not interest me. If there is no story to tell, it makes me feel inadequate. So, what's the best way to present science? How can there be any science or economics or sociology or history without a story? Mathematics? Now that I do not have an intuitive feel for. Pure mathematics, I don't know whether it lends to a story or not.
But everything else that I can think of tells a story. All that we learn new fits into a jigsaw, a tapestry, of something we knew before and something more we anticipate finding. A past, a present and a future. There is usually a question we had, some findings we made and some new questions raised. Some whats and hows and whys and wheres. A story with a beginning, a middle and a direction to keep moving unless we actually have an end. But mostly as Victor Hugo said,' Science says the first word on everything and the last word on nothing! This is something that everyone other than scientists have trouble digesting. Science is held up to ridicule frequently because of this very reason. The scientists never appear to agree on anything and never appear to settle a debate clearly. But that is the very essence of science. So always an incomplete story. But a story nevertheless. And if scientists are not storytellers then what are they? What is the point of finding something if not in the context of the rest of the landscape. Either an incongruity or a perfect fit. Either way referenced to context.
Photo by Reuben Juarez on Unsplash
Comments