Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Reply to comment

rmehta's picture

Still confused, but still thinking

I have never thought about Science and its comparison to Literature in the way that we have discussed this past week.  Over the several Biology courses that I’ve taken, my professors have pushed us to see past the writing on the page and analyze the “truth” behind what the author has said, find what evidence is used to support the idea, and deduce if that evidence fully supports what was stated. After Professor Grobstein’s lecture, while seeing Science as inductive and continually morphing mirrored how I was taught to approach a scientific theory.  However, when reading a research paper for another science class, I had always had a basis of knowledge from which I could pull to analyze the author’s conclusions.  In that science class, amongst the students and the professor, we all shared a common understanding of the basic facts: what a gene is, carbon can form 4 bonds, etc. These statements are basic, solid facts. Because of these facts, saying “nothing is true” seems far-fetched to me.  Is a list of facts still a story? Does a story always need to have an opposite that could potentially be true? (As it probably shows, I’m still a bit confused with all this.)

 

“Does being taught how to read a poem invalidate your personal connection to it?”  This was one of the questions Professor Dalke posed in Thursday’s lecture.  This question was posed after we had collectively read the poem.  When we all were reciting it, I found myself listening to my neighbors more than paying attention to what was on the page in front of me.  I was more focused on the synchrony of our voices than that of our words.  There was no one out of synch and no one who chose to read the poem in a different tone.  We were all taught the same rhythmic pace for this one poem.  This distracting synchronism in some sense lessened my connection to the poem, but I wouldn’t say it invalidated it. However, at the same time, being taught in “6th grade” the significance of Whitman did make me want to emphasize certain portions I knew were important.  Being taught the importance of Whitman helped me develop a personal connection to the poem. 

 

 

Reply

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
6 + 7 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.