While reading On the Origin of Species and the Beer excerpt from Darwin’s Plots I found myself focusing on the delivery of the information and how that affected the popularity and power of Darwin’s text. Janelle mentioned the parallels between the work of Dickens and Darwin and the more I thought about it, the more I saw the literary format. This got me wondering about the accessibility of scientific texts in current culture and the relation to Darwin’s text.
My feeling is that On the Origin of Species could be related to the Protestant reformation, in that Darwin took “science” off of any kind of pedestal and made it accessible and discussion worthy for the non-science world. This accessibility accounts for the pervasiveness of Darwin in our culture, including but not limited to influences on TV, movies, politics, language, and general public knowledge. My question is then how did we go from this history-making scientific text being so accessible to the current state of things where most everything deemed “scientific” is relayed via third party sources like news programming, magazines, and science bloggers? Are large meaningful scientific texts being printed and more importantly read by people in coffeehouses and living rooms around the world? Probably not.
My only possible suggestion is that the post-Darwin split of disciplines removed the interplay of science and literature that Darwin came from and participated in. Without the literary tools to make science approachable, it became inaccessible and unpalatable to the general public unless filtered through other sources.
Questions? Comments? Concerns?
What are your thoughts?
YES! I am so glad you wrote about this, Sarah, because I've definitely noticed a difference in style between Darwin and modern science writing.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason we get our "science" filtered through third party sources is because of the linguistic expectation of modern science writing. We talked about this in my Philosophy of Science Class, but modern science writing is often written in such a way to keep the layperson out. So the technical terms need to be filtered through a third party before the average person can understand it. Science articles also need to be written simply, with a sense of authority. That's why so many scientific articles remove the "I" factor and stick to passive voice--so as to remove human fallibility and agency from the experiment.
That's why I find Darwin so fascinating: his text uses the first person pronoun, is so easy for the layperson to read, and he uses literary devices (metaphor, analogy, and lyrical diction) to accomplish his goal. He breaks all of the rules of current science writing, yet historically, we place his work as part of the "science" canon. If science writing were written like Darwin's piece nowadays, we might not see such a distinct division between science and literature.
There is definitely a difference between Darwin's work and today's scientific articles for sure. I think it also should be noted that not all of the scientific articles we read this semester were as approachable as Darwin's. I think that Darwin's literary approach to presenting his information allowed his work to appeal to the masses, which may be why "On The Origin of Species" is so renowned and popular. The reader is easily able to connect with him, as Lauren points out with the first person pronoun, and he uses metaphors and ideas that transcend the ages. If this piece were written in a more scientific fashion, not as many people would have read it and we do not know how the theory would have spread.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Sarah and Lauren about the division between science and literature; if works and ideas were presented in a different fashion, the separation would not be as extreme.
It's true that modern scientific articles are not always clear to the layperson, but the same could be said for any advanced discipline. "Antistrophe" and "enjambment" look as foreign and intimidating to me as "bromodeoxyuridine" or "Poynting vectors" might look to you. These words aren't designed to make science some impenetrable fortress, but rather to enhance the clarity of expression to those with enough training in the field to understand them. If a scientific article refers to bromodeoxyuridine, it is so that other scientists can understand the study in order to repeat it. There is no simpler word for it such that the layperson could understand it better that the author neglected to use out of spite or arrogance. On the other hand, literary techniques obscure meaning. Metaphors can be interpreted in many different ways, which is why literature and poetry promote such rich discussion. However, they have no place in science, where meanings must be exact and unequivocal.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of first person in modern science writing also has a straightforward explanation in my opinion. It was easy and readable for Darwin to talk about observations that he personally made; today, it is cumbersome to read a method section that says "I mixed chemicals A and B and then I added them to solution C" instead of "chemicals A and B were combined and added to solution C." Again, the purpose is to improve clarity and readability.
I don't think it's Darwin's writing style that contributes to his popularity. Everyone knows Einstein, too, but we're not reading his writings as works of literature. Those of us who aren't physics majors probably couldn't understand his contributions to the field, or even sum them up accurately past e=mc2. It's true that Darwin presents his science in a unique and accessible way, but I don't think accessibility equates to popularity. I think a more reliable indicator of popularity would be the magnitude of a scientist's contributions to the field. Natural selection and the theory of relativity revolutionized their disciplines, and so Darwin and Einstein are immortalized in history.
To say that modern science is not as accessible as when Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species seems like a bit of a stretch to me. Maybe I’m a little biased because I’ve taken many science classes in which I was required to read “large meaningful scientific texts” printed in the past decade, but I completely disagree with Sarah’s statement that the “interplay of science and literature” has been removed. What about The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, the freshman class’s required reading this year and a New York Times bestseller? Or magazines like Scientific American, National Geographic, or Discover? I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that these are only marketed to “science kids.” Also, the fact that news programming, magazines, and science blogs exist in no way diminishes the power of science today. In fact, I think these “third party sources” are proof that the scientific conversation is alive and well, and it is available to anyone who wants to join. Scientists aren’t hiding somewhere; their work is completely and totally available to anyone who searches for it. True, the language can be a little tough sometimes, but as Ben said, this is true of any discipline. But I don’t think the problem lies in how modern scientific texts are written; I think the problem lies with those who aren’t willing to give them a try.
ReplyDeleteI just wrote a whole post and blogger deleted it, so this is not as eloquent as it once was.
ReplyDeleteSarah, you are completely right. I feel that the media’s goal today is to feed society as much information as possible, regardless of the format or how thoughtfully it was crafted. While we benefit a great deal from the media and technology today, we also experience disadvantages as a side-effect. The result is an often misinformed and overwhelmed public. What once was a learning experience is now a battle to know as much as fast as possible. What society is left with as a very un-interdisciplinary and strict way of looking at the world and the information that they receive. Little do most people know that if they used all of the information they obtain in a cooperative way, they would be more educated. How do we fix this problem without forcing all of the human race to take Janelle’s class?
It's certainly valid to point out that a lot of scientific writing is needlessly abstruse, and I believe that this lack of direct communication between scientists and the public can lead to unnecessary misunderstanding and tension. However, you have to keep in mind the fact that scientists must walk a fine line between efficiency and clarity. It is doubtful that many laypeople would choose a scientific journal for recreational reading under any circumstances, so why sacrifice the space and specificity for a virtually non-existent demographic? Being able to present an experiment in a way that allows others to repeat it is vital, and this can be very difficult to accomplish without resorting to scientific jargon. I am in favor of moving towards the removal of third-party sources (which have a major tendency to sensationalize) as middlemen between science and the general public, but this is unfortunately much easier said than done.
ReplyDeleteI also think it's interesting to note that the OTHER Darwin, Erasmus, was actually criticized for expressing his ideas as poetry. I wonder- would he have become more famous had he used his grandson's style of prose, or was it the elegance of Charles Darwin's ideas and the evidence behind them that led to his popularity?
unfortunately for science, and scientist, the scientific community does a pretty awful job at reaching the public and communicating the implications and gravity of things that are really rather important. while the masses may be just at fault, I believe the scientific community deserves a large brunt of the blame. In think there's a tendency today to concentrate on communicating ideas and their applications to people who don't need those ideas carefully and extensively explained and what is communicated to people is done so ineffectively. There's very little middle ground, or any kind of meaningful, but accessible, scientific literature. I think Darwin understood how to express his ideas, their import, and how they affect the way we live our lives as humans and our place in the world. This enabled him to educated instead of pontificate.
ReplyDeleteI commented last night, but after reading this chain of discussion I really feel the need to weigh in! :) All of you have important points to make, and I don't think you're listening to each other! I may go into more detail in class, but I really believe that it is accurate to say that modern scientific writing is both lacking and not lacking in accessibility; what I mean by that is, I think some of you and correct to say that there is not enough disciplinary overlap or cooperation, and that this attribute is what makes Darwin's text so wonderful. On the other hand, I do agree with those of you who argue that articles in periodicals are designed for efficiency. Scientific journals are written with the intent of creating a language for scientists. But magazines like Nat Geo and Sci American are important, too, and if they use metaphor or sensationalize a little bit, more power to them. I think we are underestimating the power of metaphor and even of exaggeration in *everything* we do; we should not be so bent on criticizing popular science writing for doing it, too.
ReplyDelete