Atoms, particles, space, time, memory...ahahh. All the ideas that I tend to wonder. The idea that there was a 'beginning' and will be an end I always tended to think was man's ego.....and still do. It seems to me that if I just happened to be apart of the pretty neat thing called life, which started and will not last forever than I must be quite special. However, I tend to lean towards the idea that atoms, energy, whatever you want to insert, was always here in some form or another and slowly or quickly morphing into other forms. What is neat is that this is happening right now, parts of me are leaving me become other forms while particles all around me around interacting with me! So really what are we, do we really exist? (Just kidding :)Kind of mind blowing though.
Martin Rees, in his article "Just Six Numbers", talks about how vastness of the universe tends to make people feel insignificant yet it is quite the contrary since if it wasn't for all the happenings coming together exactly how it did then we would not be here. Although I have not always agreed with this idea I definitely has evolved to believing in it. It isn't chaos, there is a contrived order of operations that is happening based on electrons and protons which is quite magnificent.
It does seem quite easy to think of how vast the world is and to feel so small in comparison. But when did looking at a whole and comparing it to one of its part become fair?! Obviously, we are a piece of it all-- but how amazing that it is so.
The idea that Atkins talks about in his article, "Creation Revisited", that the deep structure of change is decay beautiful. The whole death-rebirth-death-rebirth cycle, or as Maynard puts it "life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life"...you get the point. More so that change happens because of the quality of energy not the quantity is deeper than I have accounted for yet.
I have thought solely as change simply being a dispersal of energy that happens based on it's quantity changing.
"We, however, can see that achieving being there should not be confused with choosing to go there." (Atkins) As the observer (of life) I often wonder how things came to be. I want to understand why the atoms or created matter chose to come together, by recognizing that achieving and choosing are separate (which many sessions of yoga has been trying to teach me) it allows a different idea and acceptance to surface.
Quite often science is regarded as truth, while science writing is the ability to persuade that truth. This isn't to sum up all science writers with need to persuade an audience to believe, rather the ability of using words to correctly portray a meaning, of a specific science (that at times may be quite obscure for the reader), to the audience. Gross says that the 'brute facts' mean nothing, only statements have meaning. The observed vs the observer. So science means nothing until the observer (humans) make meaning from it. Again the persuasion is through the idea of representing, abstracting, and communicating the facts, which otherwise would mean nothing.
If we consider the fact that the observer has a biased lens, and through this lens reciprocates a persuaded rhetorical response, then science could be considered persuasion. Which is kind of scary to think of.
When I think of science, I know that it isn't absolute but constantly evolving. In a perfect world I hope science to be observed and studied but the scientist without subjection, but we know that is nearly impossible. Yet, the reality is that the information is looked through at a subjective view inevitably creating persuasion of the view. People believe in what they 'see'.
Is metaphor the foundation of action? I wouldn't necessarily say that metaphor creates action, rather metaphor creates an understanding that relates action. It allows people to understand and relate to experience and knowledge.
Major SIDE NOTE: Rick Bass came to speak at MSU and in response to a question stated that writers should leave our symbols instead using metaphors. I took from his explanation that symbols tie down a specific meaning which doesn't allow the reader to deduce his/her own understanding by relating to the writing. Metaphors, however, do allow the reader to relate. When writing fiction this definitely makes sense. I don't know exactly how I feel when applying this method to science writing, but it is QUITE interesting to think about!
Back to metaphor as a foundation of action, I just can't seem to agree. The action comes first and then the metaphor follows. The metaphor would not be there if people weren't trying to relate through 'different lens's'. Metaphor is a tool for communication. Can it also be considered a tool for action? Maybe in some far reaching way, as in the action was provoked by the metaphor which was used to give understanding. But again, the metaphor was a tool for understanding that which was already there allowing the action to be given by the 'now' understood message (that the metaphor was relating). WORDY? Whoops- hopefully you get the idea. But maybe I am just getting hung up on the idea of action. Metaphor creates action because it provokes understanding!
"Whatever be the subject of a speech, therefore, in whatever art or branch of science, the orator, if he has made himself master of it, as of his client's cause, will speak on it better and more elegantly than even the very originator and author of it can." "Cicero, 1970, p.19)
I have held onto a memory for the last eleven years, involving this very thought. Denise, a former lead psychologist for a Church of Scientology, once told me that you can tell your husband to 'fuck off' in two very different ways, with two very different results depending on the tone of the words spoken. If spoken angrily it may result quite (sometimes) fatal. However, if there is a tinge of sarcasm, or endearment rather, it will be brushed off without such terrible consequences. She expressed that the tone is crucial in communication and that if you feel you 'need' to 'say' something just focus on the tone.
This memory always makes me laugh- and I wish I could do justice to her two very different examples of telling someone "fuck you!" However, I may have found something to give just a little idea: Below is a video on multiple ways to say "Excuse me". (Don't mind the cheesy music... well it's overall kind of cheeZy- but it's good anyway :D)
Jeanne Fahnestock provides great examples in Accommodating Science of multiple ways to write the same information for different audiences.
"This sex difference in the LH response to a neuroendocrine challens is a critical feature in any evaluation of hormone responsiveness and sexual orientation: to our knowledge, this is the first simultaneous direct comparison of heterosexual and homosexual men with heterosexual women."
"Some homosexual men have been shown for the first time to differ from heterosexual men in the way they respond to hormones."
After reading the first quote, I -- in no way-- deciphered that which is stated in the second quote. While writing my first science news brief (in class) I chose a 24 page research paper posted by the scientists. I spent hours trying to understand their jargon. With a fear of relaying wrong information, by misunderstanding their words.
This makes me wonder, is there such thing as no personal writing? Before I have suspected, that even the scientists bring a subjective viewpoint regardless of exhausted effort to not. However, there is definitely a Large grey area that may actually hold a spot for a 'nearly close to no subjectivity- especially in writing-. So the scientist may be observing subjectively- but they are writing in a way that involves straight facts through a language that most people don't understand.
If we all speak the same language- than why do we not understand each other all the time. There is an obvious 'layman's' way (in which the writer hopes to portray for the common reader). Yet, there is an objective jargon that most people other than the scientist don't understand. I guess, what I'm trying to say is that the 'personal writing' or 'human element' that we talk so often about is that language which is universal and understood. And that there IS a language out there regardless of it being 'English' that we don't understand- the objective- unless we have studied it.
SIDE NOTE: "Anyone who has ever tried to present a rather abstract scientific subject in a popular manner knows the great difficulties of such an attempt. Either he succeeds in being intelligible by concealing the core of the problem and by offering to the reader only superficial aspects or vague allusions, thus deceiving the reader by arousing in him the deceptive illusion of comprehension; or else he gives an expert account of the problem, but in such a fashion that the untrained reader is unable to follow the exposition and becomes discouraged from reading any further. If these two categories are omitted from today's popular scientific literature, surprisingly little remains." Albert Einstein
All I can Say, regardless of the growth that has happened in this field since Einstein said this: I feel a bit better, knowing the difficulties I am experiencing is recognized by Einstein himself! Although I don't know if I feel that there is now HOPE or that I am even more HOPELESS.... probably the latter. (Just not as discouraged :)
I have always thought of writing to have rules associated with it. Initially these rules were grammar and sentence structure as far back as grade school. Although these rules I have known to exist, I never had a teacher actually point them out. I have learned by making mistakes first. All the disappointing red marks on the paper, usually pointing to simple structure. These rules have also been considered and not practiced with intention. The battle over not wanting to 'loose' my voice and the correctness of how it 'should' be written took some time to develop. Still working on that.... revision...revision..revision!
Once I decided to 'go back to school' after 10 years of being free from the education institution, I knew immediately that I would have to embrace the writing style that the professors are looking for... not just to get those As but because they are teaching valuable information. Alas, I became a writing major! Which to me is exciting and scary.
I love-- absolutely love words, communication and the power of written and oral speech via creatively or presentationally. Yet all those red marks and the 'not knowing' or not yet knowing how to structure the perfect sentence is intimidating. I like to play with words using them to express emotions. My personal writings are abstract usually describing an 'image' to the point of poetically making someone feel it as well. Empathic writing, or at least that's what I'm shooting for.
Writing has rules? Absolutely. So does communication. Isn't writing ultimately communication-- from an idea to a message? Fiction or non-fiction. There seems to always be a purpose, even if it is just expression (maybe that is connection). So if there is a purpose, then there must be guidelines to get that 'purpose' out effectively. Good communication includes sound arguments. Good writing doesn't necessarily mean that it affected the reader positively, but that the reader understood the writers message. This is why we have rules. Otherwise the writing becomes unclear and not effective.
Personal opinion in writing. This is an area to be debated. Technically humans are subjective, period. We are the scientists of our own opinions, and therefore it will ultimately always show up in writing. There are different degrees of such 'personal opinion' writing. The scientist observes and writes, including how he feels about his observation is a different level of personal opinion. So yes, there are times when personal opinion should be filtered more than others. This is only if the expected audience assumes so. You can include whatever personal opinion in a research paper if the audience is expecting so, which would more likely be a 'saturday night live' form of news. Rhetoric... It's all rhetoric!
I personally like to associate writing that is teaching me unbiasedly (as possible) for instance research papers, news, crime scene investigative reports to be left without untrained personal opinions. I say 'untrained' because we know that a crime scene investigator uses his knowledge that he has learned to deduce information. It seems obvious that there should be two different categories. News and science should be unbiased, creative non fiction and fiction should be personal opinion. Yet, scientists (especially in the psychological field) have to make observations. Just how unbiased can these be.
So I guess it comes down to 'bad' writing and 'good' writing. Writing has rules. If the purpose is to get the message across as clear as possible, follow the rules.
What is it that draws a reader in? The idea of a 'human element' seems to be the consensus. As opposed to the 'dry' writing that puts the reader to sleep, writing that is easily relate-able but also gets the information across is successful. This is the type of reading that gets the reader to come back for more.
Richard Leaky and Roger Lewin from Origins Reconsidered and Oliver Sacks from Uncle Tungsten, produced great examples of what a science narrative is in these articles. These stories seemed at first to be just that, a story. They were inviting, thought provoking, and captivating. They are written with a sensitized language that allows the reader to get lost in the story, rather than noticing it is a 'story', or in this case a log of information.
Their words flow swiftly along the pages. Many times, it seems as if (especially in science writing) the words are stiff-- forced. This could be because the information is incredibly dense and difficult to understand. The writer has to understand deeply the information they are trying to relate to the reader. This can be difficult when trying to write in laymen terms, information regarding statistical data (chemistry, physics, biology, etc) expressed in a language only the scientists understand. These writers seem to have figured out how to express an area of science that could easily be misunderstood or not understood at all. They have provided the 'gist' of 'it', that even my 8 year old son would be interested in listening to. And That is a Huge feat!
The technicality in areas of science are definitely important, but not always necessary to providing the reader with a 'vision' of the subject. Another blogger, Perrin Ireland, mentioned a valuable perspective pertaining to science writing. He talks about how science teaches us to write in the third person, yet, who is doing the 'objecting' and 'subjecting'? This is true. The idea that we should leave the narrative out of science writing is stone cold and really stemming from a fear that those have regarding how 'true' and 'honest' the article will be. Will it become 'invaluable' in terms of worthy information, or will it be demeaned.
While these are necessary concerns, they shouldn't halt the expression of science through the first person. There is a person doing the science, so why not write it as such (at times)?
It is effective, by allowing the masses to become excited and intrigued in what the article has to say. It allows the public to not feel 'stupid' which is highly important in every type of writing- (unless the writing is specifically meant to make people feel small).
Thank you Richard Leaky, Roger Lewin and Oliver Sacks for writing in a way that allowed me to get lost in science!
What is science? Is it beautiful? Is it destructive? Is it necessary? Is it helpful?
We may be able to agree on all of the above. The mere fact that a scientist can decipher a sickness and find a cure, or at least sometimes, is extremely awe provoking and undeniably beautiful.
But what happens when science goes too far? Are we suppose to understand and manipulate Nature? A cure for a disease-- great! (Or is it?) What happens when the application of nuclear bombing happens? Humans through the use of science have created at their fingertips tools of destruction that would not otherwise exist. I don't mean to bash science, in fact quite the contrary. Science is extraordinary. I simply mean to express that it shouldn't remain in the realm of beauty (as suggested by Chandrasekhar). Awe provoking. Inspiring. Extraordinary. Beautiful. Dangerous. Powerful. Science is all of these and more.
What about the science discoveries that have created the most dependent, ignorant and lazy bunch of humans? Are we not or are we getting close to that movie Idiocracy?!
Yes it's beautiful. But it's making people ugly, well, besides all those plastic barbies roaming around.
As Sagan eloquently puts it, "We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements-- transportation, communications, and all other industries; agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment; and even the key democratic institution of voting-- profoundly depend on science and technology."
Ironically, inventions from smart people, like single cup coffee makers, motorized ice cream cones (Yep- you heard right; you know longer have to lick around your own cone....it will spin around for you!), and a butter stick (no need for a butter knife anymore...just stick that butter in a plastic tube for easy use!) to name just a few, have taken away the need for much thought when it comes to basic survival and skill. It's quite a slippery slope. What seems initially incredible creates the lazy and/or ignorant.
Another problem is the insurmountable trust that some have with science. Sagan informs us that science has a 'room for error' that we all just mutually understand and respect. This is true, but only for those of us who actually know it. Many people walk around trusting completely in science. Now this obviously isn't Science's fault. Yet it is us who created science and it is us becoming more dependent on it. There is room for trust, belief, hope and use for science. I just mean to say that this 'bar for error' that Sagan talks about is extremely important and unfortunately not understood by all.
Lewis Wolpert simply states, "science often explains the familiar in terms of the unfamiliar." This is another view that is quite appropriate. It seems often that science is trying to explain the unfamiliar through discovering and inventing. All too often though, it is trying to explain in unfamiliar terms, with a 'new' label applied to that which is already familiar. It's the 'labels' that we find to be important. The 'familiar' which is around us we get, we are around it, feel it, see it, but to explain it: That's what science is doing.
So what is science? An ever evolving map of that which is around us. A map detailed with the entire picture. The good....the bad... and the ugly.........and beautiful.
Is writing not but communication? Words formed together that converse? Writing can be a direct message or abstract. When thought is evoked as words are read, communication has happened. Writing can be judged and discriminated, but the fact that thinking becomes of it-- solidifies that writing is merely communication. Depth or not. I like the idea that writing is delayed communication. A relational conversation that continues to take place long after the author has passed.
According to Grave's, Rhetoric and Reality in the Process of Scientific Inquiry, writing is epistemic. Can this be considered false? Epistemic: of or relating to knowledge or to the degree of its validation. The debate is who deciphers what is knowledge and what is not. This is the argument. It seems obvious to me that all writing comes from some form of knowledge, be it creative or strictly scientific. Language, itself, is created by man. Understood symbols used to communicate with each other. This in itself is knowledge in the rawest form. So, technically, yes, writing is epistemic.
Fisher's article, Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm, although unnecessarily wordy offers an interesting idea that writing could be summed up as a narrative paradigm. He quotes Heidegger, "We are a conversation....conversation and its unity support our existence". I am not entirely sure what is meant by this comment. I take from it not that unity is an all accepting single outlook but that it is a part of a whole. The argument, the agreement, the acceptance, the understanding...all these parts of communication is the unity. All these parts are the conversation. Writing is this conversation.
In terms of a narrative, there has been discussion about what makes one story better than another. In rhetorical terms it seems to be based upon the audience and the text. One text may fit better in one area than it may in another. So what makes a narrative? It obviously needs an author. (Should that just be left unsaid) A story, a description, a sequence, a chronology. Is it a conversing, reflective, interpretive message? Yes. But is this writing in its entirety? Does all writing narrate? I am not sure if I can state an absolute opinion on this question. My initial response, was to say that writing communicates. But then too, doesn't the narrated story? Yes. Then, I thought well to write a list, a grocery list for example. This isn't a story. But the reader is 'narrated' and therefore responds. So left then, a non-narrative is that which is not written by an author. Well, what is written without a writer?
