Flamewar walked away from. But it happens to be a flamewar over something actually worth talking about, so I feel the need to say this: If you dont understand science--not just the body of knowledge people study in science class, but the process by which that knowledge is found, the way scientists do their jobs--its probably not your fault. We do a really lousy job of teaching students at any level before graduate school how science works, and it is far too often presented in opposition to the arts. Scientists are cold and methodical and precise, while musicians and writers and painters are warm and passionate and inspired ... that kind of thing. And of course Hollywood is always ready to show the former group getting their comeuppance, for being emotionally stunted creatures of pure logic or for meddling with Things Man Was Not Meant To Know or for being dogmatic idiot savants wedded to their Theories and their Book Learning and painfully ignorant of the human truths that really matter, man! Or whatever the stereotype du jour is. None of which has anything to do with real scientists, or with real science. Im a scientist, and also a writer. This is not unusual. Among my colleagues are many writers, and musicians, and painters, and dancers, and sculptors, and lovers of art in all its forms. And loving spouses and parents and children and siblings and friends, fully engaged in the human experience. We are, simply, people with an unusual and demanding job, one that often eats up much more of our time and energy than wed like ... but lots of people in all kinds of jobs can say that. It doesnt stop us from being, well, people, most remarkable like you. (To cite another unusual and demanding job thats subject to more than its share of stereotypes.) And when it comes to our work, were all artists, if were any good at it. Yes, our work is methodical and precise; it has to be. So is the way writers put words together, or the way visual artists choose and manipulate their materials, or the way musicians put notes together, or--most definitely--the way dancers learn to make their bodies move. Years of dedicated practice, to a degree of precision most people would consider insane, and many of those who do it would agree but they keep doing it anyway. Whether at the lab bench or on the computer screen or on the printed page or on the canvas or on the stage, none of this is enough. At the root of it is the inspiration, the individual spark, the nagging question that wont let go: What if ...? The muse, if you will. Or even if you wont. There is a whole hell of a lot of art in science, and a whole hell of a lot of science in art. The refusal to recognize this is a problem that C.P. Snow (not coincidentally, a physicist and chemist who was also an accomplished fiction writer) identified over fifty years ago, and sadly its still with us today. I dont expect it will ever go away, but it sure is depressing.
Posted on: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 08:35:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015