not taking 1st person in a sicence doc?

I have thought about it and I am begining to think that maybe it is better to usethe first person in scientific documents in that allows the recognition of human error in so far as it is more obvious it might be an opinion or what is thought with regards to the data rathe than what is absolutely proven by science…?

Scientists who read scientific papers written by other scientists are too stupid to know that errors are part of scientific experiments? #-o

No…Im more concerned with the pervacance among those who are not scientists and read such…it would seem a fallacy to think only scientists read scinetific papers…and of course most scientists would assume that any ways one would hope, and as such what reason would there then be to put effort in to avoiding the 1st person?

I think that it is rare for non-scientists to read the original papers. Most people read popular science articles which have been filtered by journalists.
You can’t fix the bias in science by slapping a “THIS PAPER HAS BIASED CONTENT” sticker on a publication. Writing in the first person won’t change anything.

Probably not…but why the need to not write in first person then?

To make it less personal. To suggest that you or anyone else could do an experiment and get the same result.
Also because the writer may not have actually performed the actions which would be implied if ‘I’ was used by default.
The sample was heated at 400 degrees F for 10 minutes …
I heated the sample at 400 degrees F for 10 minutes …
My research assistant heated …
I supervised this experiment but actually my lab technicians did this …

The point in the writings is to convey what happened, not who did it.
Errors are found by the logic of its presumptions, not the presumptions of its logic.

Seems to me peoblems of that nature will occur anyways that might be slightly altered by such and may not be worth the effort of having to alter styles of writing as well as the extensive effort necessary to teach the writing method to a strict format which then prevents otherwise efficient people from the capacity of having ideas accepted simply due to the asthetic appearance of their work…I understand the necessity for many forms and means of conveance, but I don’t see a great need for just the difference in 1st and 3rd person, with repect to the costs and delay that result.

What costs and delays? I didn’t understand this entire paragraph. :question:

The cost and delay of having to learn it and get educated(costs money too) on doing it that way, and then the time spent practicing to do that, when all along people could just be taught not to make silly assumptions…otherwise they are probably going to make silly assumptions anyways…