12
$\begingroup$

Single authors referring to themselves as "we" is still commonplace today, and already Newton was we-ing in Principia. There is even a Latin term for we-ing, nosism, from "nos", which is Latin for "we". Googling "royal we in scientific writing" returns surprisingly many hits, including a Wikipedia article, two questions on Academia.SE, and a hilarious thread on scienceblogs with passages like "I’m we-ing all over myself", "it is apparently meant to include the author and the reader, and presupposes that the reader always agrees with anything the author might say", and "As kids we were schooled to avoid ‘I’, lest we be look like we had big egos. Instead we should be humble, and therefore all first person was the plural. This was taught to us by teachers who thought their own opinions were pure gold and more important than anything else on earth".

I guess this tells us why the practice persists, but not how it originated. The best I could find is Grammarphobia blog quoting Oxford English Dictionary, whose earliest example of nosism is "Old English translation of a 5th-century Christian history written in Latin by Paulus Orosius, a student of St. Augustine". We doubt however that scientists of all people would have been swayed by an obscure student of St. Augustine. More importantly, at least in the English translation, Ptolemy is already we-ing in the Almagest three centuries earlier. Of course, we don't know if we can trust that modern translators did not insert modern usage, but they did translate Archimedes and Apollonius referring to themselves as "I".

So where did nosism come from and how did it take hold? Is Ptolemy we-ing in the original, and was he the one who started the practice in science (that would make more sense than Orosius)? Or was it somebody else?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is [wri] a typo? It isn't clear to me what it is supposed to refer to. $\endgroup$ – Logan M Feb 23 '15 at 6:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As a side comment, I always justify the 'we' as a method of taking the reader by the hand and leading the way, so to speak. A pedagogical device of sorts, I guess. $\endgroup$ – Danu Feb 23 '15 at 13:33
  • $\begingroup$ See also english.stackexchange.com/questions/80493/we-i-this-author , which is already marked as a "duplicate" of two others. $\endgroup$ – Gerald Edgar Feb 23 '15 at 14:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Logan M Sorry, sloppy typing. As for other questions, they are all about why use it or how to avoid it, not history. $\endgroup$ – Conifold Feb 23 '15 at 17:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Wikipedia lists 5 types of nosism, not all are "royal" ... 1 The royal "we" or pluralis majestatis 2 The editorial "we" 3 The author's "we" or pluralis modestiae 4 The patronizing "we" 5 The non-confrontative "we" $\endgroup$ – Gerald Edgar Feb 23 '15 at 21:12
8
$\begingroup$

The "we" in the scientific papers does not mean the "royal we". This "we" means "you and I", that is "the author and the reader". For example, in proving something they say "let us consider"... and then "we conclude". A teacher addressing the class says: "we write", "we draw", inviting her students to do the same.

Some people write instead "I consider..." "I obtain", but this sounds more arrogant and rarely used.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The "we" can be used excessively. For example, a dedication, "We wish to thank our wife..." $\endgroup$ – Gerald Edgar Feb 23 '15 at 14:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I guess it sounds differently to different people.english.stackexchange.com/questions/80493/we-i-this-author But the question is not about what it means (or rather how to justify using it), but how it came to be commonly used. $\endgroup$ – Conifold Feb 23 '15 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ I do not read ancient Greek, but judging by translations that I have, Euclid and Archimedes write "I", while Ptolemy writes "we". Newton writes "I", while most modern mathematicians use "we". $\endgroup$ – Alexandre Eremenko Feb 23 '15 at 19:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If it weren't for the many upvotes I would be tempted to flag this as "not an answer". While a perfectly valid comment, it doesn't actually address the question, which is why and when did the practice of writing scientific articles in first person come to be. $\endgroup$ – A.P. Oct 29 '15 at 15:16
  • $\begingroup$ From my comment before your comment you may see that this was probably already common in the ancient times. About flagging: why should you follow the crowd? Vote down or flag if you are not satisfied. Or better, write a better answer. $\endgroup$ – Alexandre Eremenko Oct 29 '15 at 19:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.