Reply to comment

Listening to Professor Grobstein's description of science made me feel like I was in a church listening to pastor.  In his sermon, Professor Grobstein, provided the most well-reasoned rebuttal to the common objections of the uninformed to science.  I wonder how a creationist would have reacted to it.  Science, for all of its laws and theories is more fluid and open than any other discipline I have encountered.  Anybody can challenge and potentially change any doctrine, no matter how established so long as they follow the framework of experimental research. 

This is in stark contrast with Professor Dalke's discussion of literature and literary critics.  I was struck by the parallels drawn between scientists and literary critics.  I feel this is a somewhat faulty comparison.  Literary critics have only the status quo to guide their judgment of original creative works; scientists too, are critical of current and past thinking but their criticism is directed towards the future.  A scientist is only critical of an older theory when presenting novel information that suggest otherwise, while a literary critic views the past literary canon as an absolute and unchanging.   Literary critics value a work in terms of how well it relates to what has been done before while scientists value a new discovery in terms of what it may lead to in the future.  

I feel there is much stronger parallel between authors and scientists.  Both use the past as a framework for their own beliefs, ideas and innovations.  There is no higher an honor for scientist than to create a theory that is tested and argued about long into the future, I believe the same is true for authors, where real success involves becoming the benchmark by which future critics will judge the next generation of writers.