In D’Alembert’s Dream we
saw Diderot use the concept of points connected via vibrating strings as an
analogy for the makeup of a being.
Now, we see Darwin asserting in Zoonomia
that life begins as a living filament. What I’ve found interesting is that both in both cases, the
representation used by each of the intellectuals was that of a one-dimensional
object, a string. These instances
are joined by at least two more situations in science that also used one-dimensional
models to try to solve fundamental questions. First in chemistry, it was once theorized that all matter
was composed of some ether, and the way that this ether was knotted determined
its properties (i.e. what type of element). Second, we see the concept of string theory emerging today in
physics.
The pattern that surfaces from these cases is that when
tackling complex, fundamental questions about nature, humans revert back to the
most basic ways of thinking to develop their models. As far as the biological and chemical paradigms are
concerned, shortcomings eventually emerged, and the one-dimensional
representations were exchanged for three-dimensional ones, the cell and the
atom.
What are your thoughts on this pattern?
Why do you think we go back to the simplest models to
explain our most complex questions?
Do you think string theory will eventually be discarded for
one that is more complicated?
You bring up an interesting point. It is in our nature to break difficult concepts into smaller, more manageable parts, but sometimes, this can result in oversimplification. Last week, we discussed how Diderot’s analogies are helpful in that they discuss complex topics in layman’s terms but that they also present many more questions than they do answers. With Diderot’s spider analogy, we were left wondering who, if anyone, created the spider, what its limitations are, etc. Darwin’s “living filament” analogy brings many of the same questions to mind. So yes, the use of simple models/analogies has its shortcomings, but in general, I think they are very helpful. They create a mutual starting point for others to build upon.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't call Erasmus Darwin's paradigms shortcomings or simple models. In fact, I find him to be rather complex, especially when considering his historical context. I feel as though we sometimes look at people in the past as having limited knowledge or incomplete schemas of the world, when in reality, I think that the progression of ideas throughout history illustrates exactly what Erasmus Darwin is talking about with his idea of cause and effect in Zoonomia: "The state of things at this moment is the effect of the state of things, which existed in the preceding moment; and the cause of the state of things, which shall exist in the next moment" (529). Every effect in a moment of time becomes a cause for the next effect-- and so we're then dealing with inertial force that propels us from paradigm to paradigm. When looking at his ideas in history, we see how his ideas were more imaginative than the generation before him, but not as well regarded to the generations after him, which implies an evolution, just as he mentions. Though, while Erasmus Darwin was discussing improvements from generation to generation from a biological standpoint, I see no reason why we can't apply this evolutionary mindset to ideas as well.
ReplyDeleteI also do think that Erasmus Darwin's ideas of Intuitive Analogy apply with the acceptance and rejection of new schemas: "In our waking hours whenever an idea occurs, which is incongruous to our former experience, we instantly dissever that train of imagination by the power of volition and compare the incongruous idea with our previous knowledge of nature, and reject it" (Analysis of Taste 82). When we are led by our imagination, not our current ideas of what the correct paradigm is, we can find new models and schemas to explain the world (which, as we talked about in class, is where the literary and the scientific intersect!). Therefore, ultimately I do think that string theory will eventually be discarded, but I don't think "complicated" and "simplistic" would have anything to do with that change of schema; rather, it would be based on imagination and novelty (of the non-scary variety).