A long quote, from which one can extrapolate trivially a tentative answer.
"[T]echnical treatises in science do not generally receive such a license for explicitly personal expression. I believe that this convention in technical writing has been both harmful and more than a bit deceptive. Science, done perforce by ordinary human beings expressing ordinary motives and foibles of the species, cannot be grasped as an enterprise without some acknowledgment of personal dimensions in preferences and decisions – for, although a final product may display logical coherence, other decisions, leading to other formulations of equally tight structure, could have been followed, and we do need to know why an author proceeded as he did if we wish to achieve our best understanding of his accomplishments, including the general worth of his conclusions.
Logical coherence may remain formally separate from ontogenetic construction, or psychological origin, but a full understanding of form does require some insight into intention and working procedure. Perhaps some presentations of broad theories in the history of science – Newton's Principia comes immediately to mind – remain virtually free of personal statement (sometimes making them, as in this case, virtually unreadable thereby). But most comprehensive works, in all fields of science, from Galileo's Dialogo to Darwin's Origin, gain stylistic strength and logical power by their suffusion with honorable statements about authorial intents, purposes, prejudices and preferences."
SJ Gould The structure of evolutionary theory p. 34.