Rah! Rah! Rah!

“Rah, rah, rah!  Fight, fight, fight for your desire to write!”  Elise Hancock’s cheerleading tactics inspires me to pack my survival kit and traipse into the wild world of science writing.  Although I may not yet know how to use a compass, my passion for all things science provides the sustenance needed to begin my foray.   My incessant curiosity, bane of my mother’s life for many years, provides a vital component to my science writers’ tool kit.  As I spoke to my parents this afternoon, I barely restrained my bubbling glee for I had just discovered that my “irritating” inherent inquisitiveness was not only useful, but desired.  Yes!   

Elise Hancock’s sage words captivated me as she invited me into her world, introduced me to potential readers, and sensibly mentored me as a future science writer.  Her ingenious ability to weave knowledge and inspiration together while delightfully providing a gold mine of information left me hungry for more.  

      Heuristic?  Epistemology?  Reading Michael Polanyi’s article, “Scientific Controversy,” sent me immediately to www.dictionary.com .  Wisdom abounds, no doubt, but I did find myself reading and re-reading the passages several times for clarity.    

      Although the article is decades old, mankind’s tendencies to accept or refuse new scientific ideas remains constant.  Mr. Polanyi refers to hostile audiences who “deliberately refuse to entertain novel conceptions such as those of Freud, Eddington, Rhine or Lysenko, precisely because its members fear that once they have accepted this framework they will be led to conclusions which they --- rightly or wrongly --- abhor.”   Replace the scientists’ names for an issue such as climate change and it is evident that certain segments of the population grip tightly to their “beliefs” rather than expanding their education as scientific knowledge progresses.  

      As Mr. Polanyi so aptly observes scientific arguments may not be about science at all.  Rather they are conflicts “between . . . extraneous interests interfering illegitimately with the due process of scientific enquiry.”   He refers to the emotional opposition to Copernicanism and its principle that “scientific truth shall take no account of its religious or moral repercussions.”    Although we know that the Earth revolves around the sun, the same emotional oppositions play out on the battlefields concerning evolution and climate change.   

       I once heard astrophysicist Neil deGrasse-Tyson explain that science isn’t about what you “believe,” it is about the natural laws of our universe.  He asked if we, the audience, thought gravity would cease to exist if people didn’t believe in it.  Science laws stand alone, regardless of societies’ belief systems or religions.  

      Science writers often walk the tightrope between the science that is and enticing reluctant audiences to listen and consider the science that exists.  If a writer immediately alienates a potential audience before imparting any knowledge the opportunity to educate has evaporated.   The delicate dance of engaging your partner, the reader, without stepping on their feet before guiding them to listen to a different rhythm is complicated.  The article illuminates the fact that even though science is about facts, the emotional aspect cannot be dissected out of scientific discussion.

      Jon Mooallem’s article, “The Love That Dare Not Squawk Its Name,” was quite frankly, a bit of a mind f*#k.  I began reading an article on Laysa Albatross, naturally expecting this to be a scientific account of the albatross.  Which it was… I think. 

      Certainly, I learned about the Laysa Albatross’ habit, mannerisms, and quirky behaviors.  The transition from a typical science article to a political/religious commentary (not necessarily the author’s) on homosexuality surprised me.   

      Although Lindsay Young, the scientist studying the Laysa Albatross on Oahu, is careful to eliminate anthropomorphism when describing the birds’ behaviors, Mr. Mooallem shows no such caution.  Instead, he elucidates the political and religious ramifications of the birds’ homosexual behavior.   The article was extremely successful in expanding my knowledge.  It would have never occurred to me that a bird’s behavior in the wild could be politicized or prove to be a point of contention in the realms of religion.  How one subject bled into the other was astonishing. Mr. Mooallem led his reader by the hand into this blended world gently, but firmly.  I’m impressed and want to read more by this author.    

QUESTION ON, FELLOW SEEKERS OF KNOWLEDGE!!!

Images respectively:

lorisreflections.com

alexautindotcom.wordpress.com

thesanpedrocoast.com

gridirongirl.org