Reply to comment

It was a bit odd to come across the reader-response theory, as I've been debating the production of fanworks (fiction, art, etc) recently, and to see support for the concept in academic readings was a bit surreal! Just wanted to say.

That tangent aside, I really liked the way Grobstein's article laid out the idea of stories and how there is a growing disparity between the ingroup and the out. It's nicely summarized a major issue with academia, and what we've been discussing in this class in general-- how the stories told by science (and other academic fields, from what I've seen), have become incredibly insular. Academic literature is for practitioners already in that field, with no access for outsiders unless the outsider is willing to learn (and thus become a part of that group).

The idea that science is here to help make "new" stories-- that our findings today will lead to advancements in what we know and how we know it-- seems fundamental to science but it's not touched upon often enough until you get far along your studies. Another commenter pointed out high school science always being either right or wrong, which was how I had experienced science academically, but knowing from outside sources that it wasn't the case. The story idea is a great way to describe this to people who have gone through an academic world that seems hellbent on teaching people one thing (the right/wrong, fundamental unchanging truth), and then having to actually <i>go back and undo that flawed model</i> and replace it with a more nuanced one.