The details of Mary Somerville’s biography are very relevant to her view of science. Throughout her life, Somerville was told that she could not research mathematics because they were not proper things for women to be learning about. In her definition of science, you can see why Somerville persisted toward greater knowledge despite being warned against it. According to Somerville, “The contemplation of the works of creation elevates the mind to the admiration of whatever is great and noble…to inspire the love of truth of wisdom of beauty, especially of goodness”(p.115). We have seen other scientists describe science as noble, but not necessarily as “good.” This brings up many questions, Why is Science good? When did it become good? How is it good?
The only answer I can offer comes from the way in which Somerville describes the science of physical astronomy. In her work Somerville dispels the notion that only mathematicians should be the ones to appreciate the “delight of arriving at the truths” (p.115). Unlike Frankenstein who made his discoveries to become famous, Somerville is performing experiments because it is delightful to her. The process, not the product, is what she would say is good about the sciences. While studying physical astronomy, Somerville explains that you will uncover the sensibilities of music and light. But what I find the most appealing about Somerville’s explanation is the optimism she has for science. She explains that outer space is not a bunch of nothingness, it is replete with “light, heat, gravitation, and possibly by influences whereof we can form no idea” (p.116). This is literally the glass half-full metaphor on steroids. The reason I started by talking about her biography is because of how unusual I find her optimism in spite of the persecution she faced throughout her life.
I agree with your answer to why science is good for Somerville and more importantly I think it brings out a question of intent. If someone is doing science for pleasure and "delight" is it more noble or respectable than someone like Victor working in science for personal gain? When we use language like "good" or "bad"it brings questions of morality into science.
ReplyDeleteI think the question of intent is most important topic in this post. My question is, can science be just as noble if it is both pleasurable and for personal gain? Victor found pleasure in his science at first and he did not know he would grow to regret his creation at the end. People everywhere are researching for paychecks or advancements at work and still enjoying what they do. We can question their intentions, but they are not always poor or as negative as we assume them to be. The "good in science" can be the process, the product, and the result for the scientist.
ReplyDeleteI question the conclusion that just because she finds pleasure in science that it is therefore "good". I would argue that there are many people that find things generally termed as "bad" to be pleasurable. (Like eating junk food, maybe) Additionally, since with that logic, performing science is exclusively beneficial to Somerville, why would it be any more good, or noble for that matter, than Frankenstein's motivation for science? Perhaps things are determined to be good not from the presence of a certain quality, but rather from a lack of "bad" qualities, which seem to be more easily identifiable. If Frankenstein's monster had turned out to be deemed "good" would Frankenstein's process and motivation even be considered, let alone critiqued?
ReplyDelete