Journals and Epistemology

    The journals I've read are heavy in both humanities and science. Because the journals I've read are psychology journals, this would make sense. The authors of these journals are indeed scientists "looking at" the issue or argument in trying to make sense of it in a logical sense but also they are "looking through" most of the issues as psychology isn't as much of a concrete science and must be interpreted by the observer or author. In terms of structure most journals are very formal and scientific in writing for the most part and through the established niche of scientific evidence. This seems to be more of a thesis; establishing the scientific evidence at hand. After this information is presented the structure changes. Hypotheses  are established in most psychology journals as the authors must speculate what could be established from the evidence given. Depending on the subject, the way in which authors reference is also both humanistic and scientific. In any science you are going to be building on previous information, adding and enhancing already established theories however, if there is a discovery that refutes a previously thought theory or idea the tone turns more humanistic and the author will give their "opinion" or idea juxtaposed to a counter idea. Unless the author has a personal vendetta against someone he is trying to refute or has differing ideology the language is almost always directed toward methods.