Reply to comment

Unlike some of the other students in the class, I have been fortunately exposed to Professor Grobstein’s thoughts on the scientific method. When I first heard his thoughts on science being more of a “story” then truth, like many of you, I resisted, quite strongly. Science has always been a matter of truths, facts, conclusions and certainties.  After thinking about this framework of thought for a while in Philosophy of Science course and being reintroduced to the framework in this course, it has led me to seriously question the way that science is viewed as a subject. There are an infinite number of I believe now that there are fewer certainties and more questions than ever.  

The poem that we read in class was unique in two ways in that it represented two different things- the first being the uniformity in reading and the second being the distinct manner in which it was interpreted. When the class read the poem out loud, the pauses, rhythm and inflections in voice were fairly uniform to a point where even Professor Dalke referred to it as a “chant” of sorts. The student’s uniform knowledge of form, structure and punctuation and poetry in general made that possible. But, when asked to interpret the meaning of the poem, the student’s opinions differed. We all observed the same rules of English/poetry but then went on to summarize the rules differently. The “crack” in the thought process is evident in a myriad of disciplines and what I think we all witnessed is the “crack” that is evident in poetry interpretations. I suspect that the example in the class serves as a microcosm of the cracks that are evident in the entire study of English and consequently other humanities.  

I am not sure whether this is one of the many parallels between different subject matters or if I am completely making this up; but, I recall Professor Grobstein saying in class that there is no wrong answer…