An article from the Columbia Journalism Review I saw linked from Arts and Letters Daily (where they seem to be upping the number of science links of late) discusses "Why editors must dare to be dumb."
The author notes that "In science, feeling confused is essential to progress. An unwillingness to feel lost, in fact, can stop creativity dead in its tracks." Which I thought was an idea worth adding to the conversation on science, metaphor, and poetry that both I and Nick, over at The Scientific Activist, have been talking about.
Another choice line, here quoting an unnamed cosmologist: "By its very nature, the edge of knowledge is at the same time the edge of ignorance."
I'm still wondering, though, why scientists want to hold close to the beauty of creativity yet strive to differentiate themselves from poets?
(Incidentally, since this too is part of a demarcation conversation, right?, I stuck this post under Philosophy of Science.)
- Log in to post comments
This is an interesting query, though I think hard to answer, and epecially hard to answer in a manner that speaks to both the poet and the scientist. Take my situation - I consider myself a scientist in a brisk technology orientated field (molecular genetics), who happens to be in the happy instance of interacting constantly with humanists and artists. I consider myself very open minded, and yet even though I can appreciate the imaginitive process from both communities, the academics behind poetry, or even something like history just seems so "foreign" to me. Perhaps it's because there's less or no empirical follow-up, or that the definition of empirical holds a different tune, or in the case of poetry there is no necessary search for "truth." Basically, I find creativity in the artistic vein can be less worried about such things, whereas the scientist holds that "truth" higher than anything else.
This difference is important and needed, I think. But I also think it's the potential interplay between these that is most fascinating.
I like that view of it, it comes across in an appealing manner, and I sort of end up wondering, further, if we shouldn't promote more scientists like you. Now, I'm not just saying that to get a Dave love-fest going here, but because almost all the people I've ever met who came across as great scientific minds and characters -- and who were great teachers, too, to bring back an old Ask a Scienceblogger -- were those who were not narrowly defined as such, those who were uneasily classifiable, who were poetic too and overtly creative.
But there's another thing: do you think the difference between your identity as a scientist and an academic poet or historian is distinct from the difference between your identity as a geneticist and that of a, say, wildlife ecologist? Or particle physicist? Is the line to be drawn that between humanist and scientist? Or between every kind of professional and another kind?
This I think leads to a yes and no answer. Rather than a direct comparison, it's more an acceptance of similarities amongst a gradient of grey. I do define myself quite differently from other scientists in other fields, but at the same time, the manner in which we do our day to day business seems to fall under a governing criteria - that is of coming up with an idea, coming up with ways to test it, observe observe, and then adjusting the idea, all the while critiquing the process every step of the way. How it relates to the creative process is that every step is infused with the use of ones imagination. But again, quite different from the fiction writer, or the poet, or the painter.
I might add however, that I might be more at home with the particle physicist than say a traditional ecologist (one that relies less on things like genetic tools to monitor populations, etc), perhaps because like genetics, physics has a more of a reductionist way of looking at things.
So I have to keep pushing then. Because why don't fiction writers have common governing criteria? Their goal is to craft an image of a world, a fictionalized one, yes, and to do so persuasively and evocatively. And entertainly too, let's say. And they use similar tools; or they expand the tools they use, all the while catching heat from other, more traditional writers; and they observe and observe too, no? And they expand their scope, or narrow it in. And they work and work, and revise, and respond to critique, and re-articulate. And they do so as part of a broader community of fiction writers. And some of them are really good at it. And a lot are mediocre, but get by. And a lot are no good, and don't make it.
(though I hope it's clear that I'm not suggesting a fiction writer does *the same thing* as a scientist -- but that there's a values issue here, right?)
Definitely.
I just finished an interesting (although I thought meandering) book, called The Educated Imagination by Northrop Frye (I love that name), which looks into this sort of stuff from the viewpoint of the poet/writer. It's pretty interesting, although like mentioned earlier, for me there was a lot of "huh?" going on. I was going to comment a bit more when I next did a "Stuff I've been Reading" post, but in brief, the thesis of the book tries to look at the whole point of the creative arts in the context of the good of society.