Comments on: McEwan On A Scientific Literary Tradition

By: Ken Muldrew

Ken Muldrew — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 16:13:29 +0000

Harv,
It should be pointed out that Sobel grossly misrepresented Maskelyne in her longitude book (though she did it with erudition). I suppose she misrepresented Newton, too, as he understood the situation perfectly (and is even quoted by Sobel in demonstration of his mastery) but is held up as being wrong in order to provide a foil to Harrison. Sobel failed to understand both the science and the history well enough, but perhaps her story was more engaging for the errors.

By: Harv

Harv — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:11:10 +0000

Thanks for the link to the article. That was very interesting and the idea of a “canon” of work has much food for thought.

I also think that there are good science writers out there who aren’t necessarily scientists – Dava Sobel, in particular, comes to mind. Just as there are good scientists who can write well (Carl Sagan, for example). It would also be nice to not have good science writing for the public (or outreach in general) devalued in the professional sphere.

By: Spatulated

Spatulated — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 22:45:41 +0000

oh and the essay kind of adresses this

“Dawkins’ work might be seen as one extended invitation addressed to us non-scientists to enjoy science, to indulge ourselves at a feast of human ingenuity. Just as we can sit around the kitchen table and discuss operas, movies or novels without being composers, directors or novelists, so we can engage with this subject, one more sublime achievement of accumulated creativity. We can make it “ours” just as we might the music of Bach or Bill Evans.”

By: Spatulated

Spatulated — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 22:32:02 +0000

“Is there too much background knowledge needed by the reader before an emotional response can be elicited?”

a good question.

i dont think so, at least not for the best writers. I have read about things that are well beyond my understanding wether it be about a forign culture, or a historical novel (and i stoped taking history classes in 10th grade) and really enjoyed them. though i may not have gotten as much out of them as someone who really know their stuff and can truly appreciate the matter at hand, i can still appreciate the over all picture the author is painting.

I think science is scary because it never stops asking why or how. and people like to rest and science doesnt allow that.

it may also be hard to write about science because it is changing so fast so much and i imagine most writer like to sound like they know what they are talking about.

By: Ken Muldrew

Ken Muldrew — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 22:13:18 +0000

Mark,
I took the meaning of “our” to mean all scientists, rather than just cv authors. In this more limited sense, perhaps you should include “food” in addition to beauty, poetry, history, etc. to be more inclusive of Clifford (or maybe it’s the beauty, poetry, and history of food (as well as that of science)).

BTW, I loved the essay; definitely a keeper.

I wonder if it’s fair to expect scientists to be the principle developers of a literary tradition devoted to the exposition of scientific knowledge and method. You wouldn’t expect great painters to write about painting when their time could be better spent actually painting (unless they were equally talented at writing, but this is expecting altogether too much of an individual). When a Truman Capote is casting about for a topic to write about that will take them down a new path, why don’t they consider a scientific topic? Is there too much background knowledge needed by the reader before an emotional response can be elicited?

By: Spatulated

Spatulated — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 20:06:38 +0000

great stuff, just fantastic. i am going to be reading the whole essay in just a moment.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:52:15 +0000

Hi Ken,

I’m referring to the explanatory power and importance of the scientific method, and also the body of scientific knowledge. We have posted many times about scientific illiteracy and how to excite the public about science. I was merely pointing out that writers like McEwan help this cause.

By: David Corfield

David Corfield — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 16:44:38 +0000

Don’t you find a certain tension between the celebration of the traditions of science and literary science, and the images of humankind conveyed by some of those celebrated? Can one describe appropriately rational traditions of enquiry without invoking the language of the intellectual and moral virtues (good judgment, honesty, truthfulness, fortitude, etc.). These formed an integral component of Aristotle’s conception of enquiry. What does the ’selfish gene’ theory have to say to it? Are we to hear of memes exploiting these peculiar traits?

By: Ken Muldrew

Ken Muldrew — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 15:46:20 +0000

If they can understand and value what we do while finding beauty, poetry, history and intrigue in it, it gives me, at least, real hope for bringing our message to the public.

Mark,
Can you expand a little on what you mean by “our message”? It seems you have something in mind that is richer than merely the body of scientific knowledge.

By: Plato

Plato — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 14:39:57 +0000

Much to think about Mark for the lay person.:)

Your perspectve/statements also coincide with Krauss’s talk at harvard, reported by Lubos? Click on name.

Experiment, science, why, experiment, science, math?

Continuance, to push the boundaries of our thinking in abstraction, brought home?