Publish what? A reply to Scarano

Fabio Scarano (2008) shows an attractive picture of the motivations leading to the final goal of the scientific enterprise, i.e. why scientists must publish their findings. Moreover, he proposes that scientists must aim for creativity and originality through question-driven papers, rather than unenlightening descriptive ones. I agree, but I will show that this view, albeit necessary, is incomplete. The most important flaw is that he does not show how that, in order to be creative and original one needs a deep understanding of a domain of knowledge. I will argue that these qualities cannot be reached in a theoretical vacuum. It must be remembered that the scientific enterprise is a complex cognitive process. One can only advance, learn and understand from the springboard of what one already knows. The improvement of established theories or the proposition of new ones can only be possible through a deep analysis, synthesis and integration of accepted scientific knowledge. This is only possible through the scrutiny of the concepts, propositions and predictions of accepted theories. Going deeper into Scarano's ideas, I propose that to further our comprehension of nature and to give a basis for the generation of knowledge, Brazilian ecologists should look for a specific set of question-driven papers. These are what I will call the 'why-question' papers. Only why-question driven papers can provide accounts which advance scientific knowledge and foster explanations of the mechanisms behind ecological processes.