Two thoughts that are a bit connected.

Music conveys feelings, emotions, and stories. A riff on the guitar welcomes us like an old friend coming home. Orchestras pieces like “The Four Seasons” by Vivaldi or “The Moldau” by Smetana tell us of the spring blossom and the soft and quiet snow or take us on a journey down the Moldau. In music no words are required to tell a story, to convey emotions, to make a point. The same applies to poetry and literature, where for example sentence structure and rhythm is used to control reading speed and built excitement to match what is happening in the story. In scientific papers this level of understanding is largely being avoided. It might be too subjective and unprecise however I do think that scientific texts should not limit themselves to only one sphere of understanding. Currently they speak only through the pure content of what is written not through the way it is written. Writing papers in a way that they tell a story could make them more accessible and will definitely make them more enjoyable to read. I think it is reasonable to question the often dry and exclusive writing style of scientific papers which serves the purpose of a neutrality that is questionable as well. Moreover, there might be significant benefits to writing papers like composers write their music.

On the topic of scientific neutrality, I do not really have any proof for its existence or non-existence. I thought however of an interesting way to test this. The idea is simple. First a specific topic must be chosen, really it could be anything. Let’s say the topic is “causes of the fall of the Mesopotamian civilization”. Then some sources let’s say 10 different ones on the topic are selected. Next we have to find subjects in this case scientists. Professors from a few faculties, maybe economists, biologist, and political scientists should do. All of them write a paper on the topic using only the 10 selected sources. The papers can then be compared within the different faculties and between. If all papers roughly make the same point, we can assume a scientific neutrality. If they vary between the different faculties more than within them, then we could conclude that the scientific focus influence’s opinion and if there is no clear coherence, there is very limited scientific neutrality. This thought probably needs a bit more thought, also have not thoroughly checked yet if this has already been done before. I could not find anything so far though, so let me know if you know of something.