Reply to comment

This week we defined the story of science as an inductive process. Science is a "loopy" unending process of revisionism, in which successful empirical scientists question observations. A good scientist summarizes their observations and recognizes that inconsistent observations are the most important ones. Because cultural and personal background influences observation there are critics of the story of science. Zadie Smith claimed, "Writing is not science," while Dr. Paul Grobstein claimed "scientific statements are...provisional stories, reflecting human perspectives." This left the class to question, is independent analysis better than the guidance of formal interpretation?

I believe that formal interpretation is an important component for learning. With formal guidance the reader has context to appreciate literature. For example, most of the class understood "O Captain! My Captain" referred to the death of Abraham Lincoln. However, I had a black and white interpretation of the poem until Dr. Dalke explained that Walt Whitman's poem was an apostrophe.  Again, I read the poem for context and questioned the interchangeable use of captain/father. Only after direction from the professor was I able to appreciate the poem as it was originally intended. After the discussion of "O Captain! My Captain" I understood the course's definition of science. My observations followed a process of revisionism and the most important ones led me to question the context of Whitman's poem.