Reply to comment

As a science student, listening to the first lecture on the nature of science as “story telling and story revision”, I was taken aback by this initial description of science.  I believe that as students of science, we often fail to realize what science truly is, or perhaps, the way in which science is presented to us during these four years prevents us from ultimately reaching this conclusion on our own.   When we are asked to perform experiments in lab, or when we use the “Socratic method” in our science classes, we are ultimately being asked to question in order to reach an ultimate conclusion-a conclusion that we are expected to accept as truth and that will provide the basis for further study.   For us as students, within a classroom setting, science is always a method for us to reach an ultimate truth-one that has been proven and we are expected to accept.  What we fail to realize; however, is that science is not truth, but in fact a “work in progress.” as stated by Professor Grobstein.  I believe that as scientists, we always have this underlying feeling that we are working towards something, that science never ends because there is no ultimate truth-otherwise, there would be no science, but it is difficult to realize that as students because we are constantly working towards uncovering a truth within the classroom.

Going into the next class with this new view of science, I found it difficult to accept it when it was stated numerous times that a difference between science and literature included science’s attempt to “prove”.   I find that science does not attempt to “prove” anything because there does not exist an ultimate truth to prove.   The idea of proving something, to me, involves already knowing the truth, and working backwards to understand why it is so.  I believe that science, however, works towards something that does not yet exist.  As we move forward in science, we cannot say that what we previously knew was wrong and what we know now is right, but rather what we know now is less wrong than what we previously knew to be right.  For example, the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe was an idea that was thought to be very right, and any ideas that were presented against it were considered very wrong at the time.  Therefore, I believe we can make no conclusive argument that we have proven anything in science, but rather, that we have reached ideas that we believe to be less wrong than previous ideas.  So the argument that science proves, while literature is more subjective does not seem entirely accurate to me.  One argument that was presented in class; however, that I did find very convincing was the argument that ideas in science need to be replicated in order to be accepted; whereas in literature they do not.  I do agree that this is a difference that needs to be accounted for in the “versus” between science and literature.  However, there is an inherent similarlity between science and literature that is also presented with this argument.   If we analogize the scientist to the literary critic in order to make this comparison, it is evident that the literary critic, like the scientist needs to, in particular situations, analyze the text in the way in which the writer intended for the text to be analyzed.   Furthermore, ideas in literature, like in science, can be analyzed in n numerous ways –in the way the writer intended, the way in which others have analyzed the text, or in the way in which the reader wants to analyze the text.  For example, when analyzing “O Captain! My Captain!” some analyzed the poem in the way it was intended by the writer, while others presented their own interpretation.  Similarly in science, there are numerous ways in which observations can be analyzed; however, I believe it is this aspect of truth that prevents scientists from presenting ideas as do literary critics.  Science is expected to be working towards some type of truth.  It is this idea of truth within science that provides some sense of security for people.  I believe this is why in science, the idea of replicating ideas is so important.  Otherwise, scientists are literary critics-they analyze observations. 

Lastly, I walked out of class on Thursday with a question which involved our reading of “On the Origin of Species”.  We were told to read the book as a novel.  I seem to be  having trouble with that because I am not sure what reading a scientific text as a novel really means, as it is hard to get passed all the scientific jargon and look at it as simply a work of literature.