Reply to comment

Our conversation in class this week addressed the issue of how to define what is science and what is not.  In philosophy of science, this is referred to as the demarcation problem.  A similar problem arises in discussions of aesthetics.  It is an enormous question, encompassing science and everything else simultaneously.  For the moment, I will offer my thoughts about the potential parallel between science and literature. 

Continuing with professor Grobstein’s thought that the scientist is analogous to literary critic.  Specifically, that scientific writing and literary criticism follow the same or very similar form.  They consist of explicit references to a particular object of interpretation, a piece of writing or natural phenomenon.  The author is attempting to present their story in such a way that the reader can understand the story and how it was constructed from the available evidence.  The explicit nature of the connections facilitates the reproduction of relevant observations.  The content and structure requirements of scientific writing are not specific to papers about natural or physical topics; I am talking about good analytic writing. 

On the other hand, literary writing contains implicit references to observations.  Part of the role of the reader, literary critic is to interpret these references.  To create a coherent account of the relationship between the literary object and the set of references that the critic finds significant.  The idea of the critic selecting significant references is indirectly related to the crack in Grobstein’s story of science.  They both permit cultural and personal biases as part of the process.  I think the work we did on Thursday with the poem was consistent with process or loops outlined in the model of science as a story.  When the object of interpretation is of nature as opposed to human origins, then the act of interpretation is science. 

There are other types of writing; the relationship between scientific writing and literature is not binary.  I would like to include at least another category of writing.  This form of writing would be more for the purpose of informal communication, written as opposed to verbal, conversational.  As for literary writing, I am remaining silent on that topic for the moment.  Mostly because there is an essay I want to quote and I left the book at the farm…  I am curious to see how useful my distinction between scientific and nonscientific writing proves this semester.