Dorman suggests that Kepler's motivation for including the errors and documenting the hours of tedious calculations that formed the foundation of his work was done certainly to negate potential criticism. By identifying the false leads that he followed, he could anticipate alternatives that others might suggest but that would prove fruitless. At the same time, there were explorers and discovers also writing about their journeys who also included details that were not necessarily beneficial to their own public image. So Kepler was not the only man of science to take this approach (Dorman 48).
Another reason for using this technique as opposed to the narrators of Lewis and Twain who spoke with certainty is that providing the reader with alternatives that have already been considered and discarded bolsters the author's own point of view. The impression that the reader receives is that the argument is presented without prejudice, although that is not necessarily the case. The author wants to persuade the audience of the correctness of the information being presented, and providing the exact details of all of the analysis performed and reasons why certain alternatives were not pursued further is an effective way of succeeding in that persuasion (Dorman 48).
Today's scientific advancements are often made within the confines of academia, or at least in a partnership between industry and academia. There is considerable competition to be first with a discovery, and scientists are under pressure to publish their results, particularly when there are funding issues or public relations at stake for companies or governments behind the research. Even the order in which names appear in the credits of articles can be the result of lengthy negotiations. Although such competition can be thought of as new, it is in fact a longstanding part of the scientific method. Present-day scientists always build on the work o...