Reply to comment

You arguments are quite compelling, but I must agree with hlehman. Personally I am not a fan of scientific writing, I find it dry and tedious. Although I definitely appreciate its predictability, it is easy to decipher where to look for the certain information. But truth is, it's frustrating.  The other night I was talking to one of my close friends, she is a Biology major and she can spend hours reading science or psychology readings. She was telling me her lover for the straight forward information, she knows just what to expect, and where to find the data and conclusion, her favorite part undoubtedly is the abstract, she doesn't need to read the whole thing to figure out what information is in the text. I on the other hand cannot fathom the idea of spending any amount of time reading these texts. I am an Anthropology major and I quickly prefer reading in Social Sciences or Humanities. Although Humanities has a great variation in its writing, where as Social Sciences still manages to have some form of predictability. I like the mix between the predictability and creativity that a lot of Social Science texts tend to have.  Ethnographies for example tend to have an introduction about what the investigation is, then research methods and what information was gathered, and finally the concluding arguments. But within this predictability there is still so much variability. But both Humanities and Social Sciences use a language that is easily accesible. Science texts tend to use a language that is simply confusing. One needs to be completely  understand the topic to even begin to properly interpret the information. In other words my dislike for Science texts is not for its predictability but rather for the confusing jargon they are written in.