system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Are all interpretations, even in STEM sciences, necessarily narratives?

I've been reading Hayden White's Metahistory, and his brilliant analysis of the narrative core of histories, regardless of their content or their argument structure.  

Part of the problem being, he says, that because history isn't a science and requires an organized selection in order to present a deductive case (as opposed to repeatable inductive experimentation), history is inevitably bound by its narrative/fictional forms.

Which had me wondering if this applied to the more acknowledged scientific fields.  I'm assuming that the inductive and repeatable observation of behavior is one thing that can be recorded independent of narrative, but the organizing of said facts INTO meaning, doesn't that necessarily involve narrative?

And if so, wouldn't that mean White's Metahistorical ideas would challenge the concreteness of not only social science interpretations, but many regular science interpretations?  How is this then reconciled with the idea that there at least exists inductive experimental data that is obtained in ways that selective historical data isn't?
gpt
Oh boy, this is a tough one.

Science is about the external world.  Ideally, scientific theories are judged by their expressive power about the external world.  Our experience of the world is mediated and there is a narrative, well, it's called a paradigm in science.  Thomas Kuhn wrote a book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which is a good place to start.  

But you will need more than Kuhn's perspective that to understand what is going on.  This is a big topic, and it isn't settled.