This question is about structure of scientific texts. This can be master thesis or published journal article.
The Disucssion section: Is there a reasonable rule why the discussion of results comes before the discussion of methods?
I often see this in published articles and I argue about that with my professor. But no one gave me a reason for this - not even a bad reason.
In my opinion the order should be different: Discussion of the methods first and then the discussion about results. The reason is that I need to see the results and their value/weight in the light of the methods they are obtained.
I am asking here because I am naive and optimistic and think there is a reason why all journals and professionals do it that way. I don't want to modify their opinion. I just want to know why they do.