Reply to comment

As this class continues I find that the gap between science and literature is rapidly closing. Science is a story, literature is a tool for looking at the world; I can't lie when I say that I find all of this to be quite disconcerting. It is so ingrained in us that science has to be... sciency. It must be studious, quiet, sterile. Yet, it is slowly being revealed that this view of science is not at all what is present in the scientific community. Science is deeply personal and highly subjective. Ok, I have seen that in my own readings for Anthropology (whether or not you consider Anthropology a science course, the approach to fieldwork is much the same as with science and has often demanded a sterility of the self) an increased desire to analyze the self along with the material. as one of my readings says, "the effective field worker learns about himself as well as about the people he studies." - Hortense Powdermaker "Stranger and Friend"

My question now is how valuable it is to alter our perception of science from the stereotypical, objective science and the new, subjective view? Yes, we should bear in mind the fact that science is not definite, that it is 'loopy.' But what does subjective science give us that we can't get through our current concept of science? What use is it to inject a scientific abstract with personality and voice? Although Darwin clearly does have a voice in 'Origin of the Species' many found it to be just as dry and difficult to read as any modern scientific article. So, what does science as a story do for the population in general?