"The aim of science is to make difficult things understandable in a
simpler way; the aim of poetry is to state simple things in an
incomprehensible way, (...) The two are incompatible."
Do you agree with these statements?
If you are not sure, take a look at this article:
www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228441.000-rhyme-and-reason-the-victorian-poet-scientists.html?full=true
Do you think it is possible to use art in order to make science more popular and comprehensible? Are scientists capable of creating such art, or is it more like a private joke, which can be understood only by a small group of people?
You can also get familar with some modern attempts, like the ones available here:
http://sciencepoems.net/
"There once was a man who loved math, who thought he was Sylvia Plath…" ;)
It would be insane to believe poems could explain science
ReplyDeleteRhymes and formulas are an unthinkable alliance
Explaining Newton that way would be a defiance
Making an algorithm for beauty would be brilliance
Oh, there may be no poems-science romance
Modern art is no more than a tickling tease
Fractals as paintings? It’s just a disguise
Let authors write their prose and lyrics
Scientists need other means for physics
Love, pain, mourning and ecstasy
They are all fantastic for theocrasy
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGenerally speaking, science in supposed to explain complicated and difficult matters in a simple way, easy to understand. The poetry, on the other hand, is the art of using words to discribe emotions and to provoke emotions in the readers. To achieve this, poets are using highly sofisticated language, full of methafores and comprehensive semanthic structures. Such language is far from being simple
ReplyDeleteIt's all about patterns, scientists look for patterns in whatever they are studying and poets look for patterns in language. A beautifully crafted poem is like an equation, it explains something using carefully chosen words and it's so perfect you can't improve it. People create art around things they find inspiring, certainly science is one of those things:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGINaRUEkU
Comparing science and poetry is like comparing astrophysics with astrology. The same way as fortune teller is not an astrophysics, the poet is not a scientist.
ReplyDeleteScience is straight forward. Its main goal is to resolve unclear, understand unknown. There is no space for uncertainty and ambiguity in the science.
Poetry however does not even have to make sense. Sometimes its main goal is only to play with the word, to sound in a special way when spoken. In other cases the true meaning of the poem is understandable only for the writer, in other cases understanding of the poetry is sex biased, can depend on the life situation of the reader and many other things.
In the science for every scientist explanation should have exactly the same meaning, despite of sex, nationality or the area of living.
The matter is that process of thinking does not provide anything new, ie it is just a tautology like mathematics. The mathematicians define а set of axioms and that's all - everything else is a paraphrase of the same in other words (symbols). For our mind to find such a new set of axioms (a new viewpoint) is only possible by interrupting the thinking. And this can be done by focusing on the reality or something else. In other words, you should find a new island of Possible and then explore it with the intelligence. But the intelligence alone cannot find such a viewpoint and even explored all the available the Space of Possible - at the beginning this process is fruitful - cannot escape, and finally fall into the trap there (I think you can think up an appropriate analogy to illustrate this).
ReplyDeleteAnd this is not surprising, since each the feature is just an attractor that channelizes energy , ie it is just a cycle an nothing else.
Science is useful. The knowledge generated by science is powerful and reliable. It can be used to develop new technologies, treat diseases, and deal with many other sorts of problems.
Science is ongoing. Science is continually refining and expanding our knowledge of the universe, and as it does, it leads to new questions for future investigation. Science will never be "finished."
Science is a global human endeavor. People all over the world participate in the process of science. And you can too!
I do agree with the statement that science should be presented in such a way that the reader/listener would easily understand the presented topic. Although this may be hard to achieve as people are different and things that tend to work for some do not necessary do the same for others.
ReplyDeleteDuring my studies at university I often came across books that were deliberately hard and taught the "old school" way where teachers wanted students to spend additional time trying to understand them. I'm not a big fan of such an approach, but I must admit that I still remember quite a lot of the topics presented in such classes.
Personally I do not see the point of using art as a way to make science more comprehensible. I think that taking such an approach would be confusing for many (including me) as you might wonder whether the author used the terms accurately or just for the purpose of creating a good rhyme.
Do you think it is possible to use art in order to make science more popular and comprehensible?
ReplyDeleteA picture is worth a thousand words.
In that way you can make people understand something quicker. I also think that although the picture is a faster way of understanding we also have a smaller “cache” for this type of data so you can‘t expect to be able to convert all knowledge into images. Some date is better usable and easier to learn when in the form of words and numbers.
On the other hand I can recall the some “poems” that helped me remember some math o chemistry ideas.
I can agree that if a poem is short enough to be remembered as a whole and that the scientific idea is fully covered then you can make use of one to strengthen your memory.
I agree with Dirac’s thesis (and with Kinga) that “The two are incompatible”.
ReplyDeleteI think that showing science using art may be funny. When I was watched Wiktor’s linked video I remembered “T’Raperzy znad Wisły” band. Their method of teaching history didn’t revolutionize polish schools.
I think that these forms of presenting knowledge are interested for people who already know and understand presented ideas. Additionally I think that presented art is not too top level one (delicately speaking). I will change my opinion if I see Noble’s prize for such poetry.
And I’m not sure if presented pieces are ways for presenting science in simple way and not presenting poetry for scientists.
It depends on that what we wont to learn in some cases is better to show some pictures and diagrams to understood some problems in other hand sometime like it was wrote before some problem is better understood when it is shown by the some words and numbers.
ReplyDeleteCongratulation for the great post. Those who come to read your Information will find lots of helpful and informative tips. Actualités au Cameroun
ReplyDelete