Jenna Webster
Professor Gayford
Eng. 102-49
25 February 2004
A new view on Science:
Dealing with the lay person within us all
I have come to realize that we are not searching to find answers, but are searching to learn. The ‘big question’ for me is Why must we know where we are going? Why can’t we just enjoy the ride without knowing the destination? Not only does this apply to reading a book, but to everyday life. It’s ok to read and not understand, as long as you ask questions and push yourself to try to get something out of the material. At this point in the semester I’ve come to accept the fact that I may not be able to read, and grasp what the author is saying, but that I’m thinking, and not worrying about where the book is going to end. This question interests me most, because it is a task we all face, simply because it's human nature. “Human beings are, understandably, highly motivated to find regularities, natural laws" (Sagan, 19). Not only do we seek the answers, but along the way need to know if our assumptions are right or wrong. Am I on the right path? Did I 'get it'? What am I suppost to be grasping from this story? This is also human nature, and I see many classmates struggle with this concept of 'needing to know' along with myself. "Unfortunately, the territory between right and wrong is uncomfortably unfamiliar to most of us, especially when it comes to science" (Cole, 37). Science is an ever changing, evolving thing, just like life. Not only do we spend time thinking and contemplating what is right but while we are doing this we are "spinning hypotheses, checking to see whether they make sense, whether they conform to what else we know, thinking of tests [we]can pose to substantiate or deflate [our] hypotheses, all the while finding [ourselves] doing science" (Sagan, 17). This process, Sagan describes, is something we do subconsciously, while either reading these books, or trying to figure out an everyday problem. All the while partaking in science!
On page 17, Sagan says, "Sometimes we hear pronouncements from scientists who confidently state that everything worth knowing will soon be known- or even is already known". Greene adds to this idea with his comment, “physicists by their nature will not be satisfied until they feel that the deepest and most fundamental understanding of the universe has been unveiled” (117). Cole backs this statement up with a quote from physicist David Bohm, " The notion of absolute truth is shown to be in poor correspondence with the actual development of science" (Bohn in Cole, 17). She goes on to say, " People who do claim to possess this kind of [all-knowing] knowledge are not in the business of science, because right and wrong in that sense are not questions of science; they are only matters of dogma" (40).
Dogma, is a word that I have read repeatedly. Not only does Cole use it, but Sagan does also. “Science is bases on experiment, on a willingness to challenge old dogma, on an openness to see the universe as it really is” (16). Essentially the authors seem to shadow each other. Greene challenges our assumptions taken as fact, or, old dogma, in his book. He does this by trying to relate to the average lay-person, who wants to understand physics better. Or, wants to try, anyway. He attempts to explain Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in lay-man’s terms, along with other theory‘s that revolve around the universe. Unfortunately, Greene holds high standards for the lay person. His writing is open, and friendly, yet he still manages to have me lost in the mumbo jumbo of scientific terms. Cole’s book is very similar to Greene’s, yet her writing is easier to relate too, and to understand. All five authors we are reading have a different writing style that invites the reader into the book. Greene uses friendly, informative, tone, and almost seems to persuade your to listen to him, in hopes that he will help you to understand our ‘Elegant Universe’ better. He also plays with words, as the title suggests, which raises questions as to what the chapter ‘Microscopic Weirdness’ and ‘Of Warps and Ripples’ will be about. His use of metaphors makes the reading easier to get through, and helps to hold interest through the mumbo jumbo. “At the turn of the century, there was a gargantuan fly in the theoretical ointment” (90). This statement caught my attention, and held it, making me wonder many things about this theory.
Cole and Sagan, like Greene, talk to the reader. They use the pronouns we, I, you, and us. “I like a universe that includes much that is unknown” (Sagan, 20); “We seems to be skimming the surface of an angry sea” (Cole, 3); “If you find this property of light hard to swallow, you are not alone” (Greene, 33). Angier, and Ackerman also use metaphors, but both of their writing isn’t as focused on science. Her writing is so flowery, light, and so enticing, all because of metaphors. Pheromones are the pack animals of desire(26). This is one of my favorite examples of how Ackerman toys with language, bending, and molding it in her own way. When I read this passage I immediately imagined a group of imaginary organisms running ramped filled with the desire to find a mate. Her writing is so vivid, that you can’t help but be dragged on an imaginary picture show. This woman could tell you to go to hell, and would do it in such an eloquent, exquisite way that would probably bring tears to your eyes.
Angier’s writing is equally entertaining. Like Greene, she has a knack for giving her chapters eye catching titles. Chapter 28 is ‘A New Theory of Menstruation’ begins “The menstruating woman has been variously vilified, feared, pitied, or banished from the village to spend her bloody days in solitude” (177). Her book is composed of many interesting facts , and I was unable to find the words to categorize her book, until I looked on the back cover, and saw that she was placed in the