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!
Or maybe.... my brain is on metaphor.
No comments:
Post a Comment