Consciousness, Literature and the Arts
Archive
Volume 5 Number 1, April 2004
_______________________________________________________________
Wilson,
David L. and Bowen, Zack. Science and Literature: Bridging the two cultures.
Florida, USA. University Press of Florida. 2001. ISBN 0-8130-2283-5. Hardback £
46.50.
Reviewed by
This
is a remarkable book, especially for someone interested in compare scientific
and literary thinking. The discussion of scientific thought is actualised and
presented in a simplified manner, probably because this book was written as a
result of an interdisciplinary course given by both authors, or maybe because
the book takes opinions from several students, but by not doubt the information
is structured in a very didactic and attractive mode.
“There
is something special about our ability to contemplate ourselves and our place in
the universe. That, after all, is what this book is about, ultimately”.[1]
The phrase, posed by David Wilson, resumes one of the aims in this book.
The
examination of scientific and literary thought begin setting the conceptions of
the origins of the universe that science and literature have. The analysis of
scientific conception is accurate and easy in the presentation of the central
topics of discussion. This first approaching to scientific conceptions, drives
the reader to several questions as how reliable is this knowledge? What kind of
method was used to make these discoveries? Can we trust it to give a more or
less accurate description of the World?
In
many ways science and literature are similar. Both rely on metaphors and
descriptions of facts in a narrative language. But there are deep differences,
one of them is the scientific aim to set unbiased truths, while literature
accept some, or all, biases in their descriptions. The description of the “Big
Bang” origin of the universe is a clear example, while the scientist is taking
this as a fact free from every bias posed by him, the humanist is attracted to
this theory because its metaphorical connotations. For the humanist, other
theories are interesting too, as the one settled up by Empedocles, or by the
Bible, and the interest in truth is different.
This
differences grow gradually along the book. In order to establish how do we think
scientifically, David Wilson studies first how natural sciences do their work,
and social sciences are saved for study in last chapters. A general model of the
scientific method used in natural sciences is presented in a brief mode. Making
of observations, formulating of hypotheses and predictions, testing of
predictions and confirm or reject and reformulate of hypotheses, are explained
in a very easy way. This is one remarkable characteristic of this book: complete
and easy for the non–specialist.
The
references to classical authors, as Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur or Freud are
present in an easy presentation. The contemporary authors, as K. Popper, or T.
Kuhn are present in the same easy way too. These passages are ideal for a
well–documented introductory course to scientific thought. The critical
comparison with literature is very accurate too. Zack Bowen poses that science
and humanistic literature are not incompatible and introduces one of the most
known theses of M. Foucault, that knowledge and power are indissolubly related.
Wilson
examines the question about the possibility of a science of humans from the
point of view of their complexity. Some aspects of human sciences can be
developed with certainty, but others are very complex to be developed. One of
the areas where mathematic representation is failing to explain human mind is
the so–called IQ test. This test supposes a definition of intelligence as a
problem solving activity, but this is not always the case. The cultural
conditioning is different in different individuals and the results of the IQ
test evaluate not the intelligence but the information present in an individual.
This use of mathematical computation leads to an oversimplified concept of IQ
and dump unavoidable biases in tests.
A
debate about the economical determinations of scientific research reflects not a
wide comprehension of Foucault’s thought by both authors; they reduce the
range of apparently disconnected works of this French thinker about power and
class determinations of knowledge into a mere question of financing projects.
Foucault requires a cogent and erudite analysis of how the unconscious
conceptions of humankind in an historical moment are determined from the fears
unconsciously introduced by a dominant class to preserve their power. Examples
as the need of private property, individuality and social acceptation are
connected with the relation power–knowledge. Wilson tried to present Foucault
conception as extreme exaggeration, but his response depends of the exposition
that Bowen made when he schematised Foucault saying that science is “sold
out” to the rulers without mentioning that this as an unconscious process in
which fears take an important place.
A
very interesting chapter about the causes of uncertainty in science would be
very useful in an undergraduate curse of scientific knowledge, accomplished by
other chapter about language and uncertainty. Thermodynamics and semantics are
examined in the same easy that is attractive in this book. Literature is used in
various chapters in order to present how scientific knowledge and literary
fiction can be an object of known.
An
schematic and non–problematic presentation of Plato’s theory of perception
is preceding a treatment of human perception of reality and the biases present
in various versions of reality. The problems of direct and representative
knowledge and illusion appear and are used for analysis of knowledge in science
and in a novel.
Revolutions
in science are examined in five different stages: 1. Galileo, Copernicus and the
place of Earth in the Universe. 2. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory. 3.
Evolution and Natural Selection. 4. Life Obeys Laws of Physics and Chemistry. 5.
Mind and Matter: The Neuroscience Revolution. Some of these revolutions are
problematic to accept and the problematic are schematised in this book by both
authors.
History
is examined and the problematic involved in accept this discipline as a science
is presented schematically. Various conceptions of history are presented in
order to discuss how different meanings are possible in historical discourse.
The very brief presentation of dialectical conception of history is very poor
and aseptic, Bowen is avoiding the basic definitions in Hegel’s thought:
Self–consciousness, work, alienation, and struggle between
self–consciousness, Lord and Slave dialectics, etc. More accurate is the
presentation of cyclic conception of history, easy to incorporate in the
literary fantasies.
The
topics around ethics and morality in science and technology belong to a final
chapter. Personal ethics of the scientists, ethics in the performance of
experiments, ethics between scientists and community, are examined before the
last chapter in which the book analysed Huxley’s Brave New Word and the
misuse of technology.
The
book finalizes with appendixes about the course imparted during a semester and
the polemics posed in analysing Rothman’s ideas about “myths” in science:
“Nothing exist until is observed”. “Nothing is known for sure”.
“Nothing is impossible”. “Whatever we think we know now is likely to be
overturned in the future”. “Advanced civilizations on other planets possess
great forces unavailable to us on earth”. “All scientists are objective”.
“All problems can be solved by computer modelling”. “More technology will
solve all problems”. “Myths are just harmless fun and good for the soul”.
Conclusively,
in Science and Literature we have an excellent tool to teach the
now–a–day science in an undergraduate course, very accurate in the
presentation of topics. Teachers would add topics about Foucault or Hegel, or
subtract some readings, or substitute by others, but the schema of the course
and of the book is very didactic and useful in teaching.