Writing's Distinct Nature Compared to Science
Written on
Chapter 1: The Dichotomy of Writing and Science
Throughout my journey of transitioning from science to writing, I've often viewed these two fields as oppositional, which is an incorrect perspective rooted in scientific thinking.
Writing is fundamentally different from science.
While scientific writing exists—comprising research papers, health communication, and professional discourse—these texts often lack pleasure in their reading experience.
Section 1.1: The Dryness of Scientific Writing
Many have experienced the agony of reading scientific literature. These writings serve a functional purpose rather than aiming for beauty. Consequently, they tend to be abstract and rather uninspiring.
Subsection 1.1.1: An Image of Scientific Writing
Photo by Elijah O’Donnell from Pexels
Section 1.2: The Flaws in the Scientific Approach
The scientific method often involves dissecting literature into structured themes, chapters, and paragraphs. Scientists tend to analyze everything down to the smallest detail, yet a masterpiece cannot be understood merely by examining its components.
Chapter 2: The Quest for Greatness in Writing
A scientist who meticulously studies their subject using a top-down methodology may then strive to synthesize their findings in a bottom-up fashion. However, this approach rarely leads to greatness.
Great writing is bold and exposed, subject to judgment from all. It thrives on public engagement and community support. Unlike scientific writing, which can often be dissected and replicated, great writing stands out precisely because of its uniqueness.
How can one navigate the path to creating something truly original?