Science has a reputation for being boring, boring and dry. But beware: Who would like to spice up his texts stylistically and informatively, could make a mistake.

What scientific work is

In the sciences there are claims that are largely certain in the case of mathematics and natural science, but which in the case of social science and humanities often can only be kept to a degree. For in the natural sciences, the framework for solving problems is certainly narrower, while in the “soft” sciences, different paradigms coexist and have their own methodological instruments. The question “which materials are best suited for use in extreme temperatures?” And the question “why did the Weimar Republic fail?” Require both scientific answers, but are completely different in methodological approach.

The cardinal mistake of exuberant creativity

Especially students who are accustomed to being constantly entertained by the excessive use of social media, the variety of distractions, and the 24-hour YouTube videos may find the strict scientific and inaccessibility and bulkiness of some texts a problem. If they themselves act as authors, then there are two basic problems: Either an attempt is made to imitate the scientific style with a stilted, artificial language with many foreign words, or the work is decorated with supposedly creative elements. Both can hurt the scientific.

A too “creative” approach to a topic sometimes leads to over-interpretation of topics or suspicions of links between topics that can not be proven. Instead, it is best to closely examine all the logical conclusions of the work. Because, for example, where there is only one correlation, a causality can be erroneously assumed.

So it makes sense to set narrow limits to the desire for new ideas, the formulation of unusual thoughts, at least in scientific work. Because creating texts is about producing scientifically valid knowledge and conclusions – not about feeling comfortable while writing or impressing the reader with a variety of ideas.