Author: Nick (Page 2 of 2)

Pinker v. Lehrer

Steven Pinker and Jonah Lehrer have differing views on the future of science. In “The Future of Science… Is Art?” Jonah Lehrer makes a case for the arts and sciences to come together so we might have an better understanding of reality. Earlier in his essay, Lehrer writes, “The more we know about reality… the more palpable its paradoxes become.” Science can be very confounding, and it would seem that Lehrer believes science cannot answer all questions we have about reality. This would make the assumption that those paradoxes cannot be resolved with further investigation. In “Science Is Not Your Enemy,” Steven Pinker writes to defend science from some of its attackers. In one part of his essay, Pinker writes, “Scientism does not mean that all current scientific hypotheses are true; most new ones are not, since the cycle of conjecture and refutation is the lifeblood of science.” Science is subject to error. This conjecture and refutation within science is our way to correct that error. It is quite possible that some of these paradoxes may very well be corrected because of a hypothesis or theory is not a good representation of reality. It would seem in the face of this issue, Lehrer would rather look somewhere that is not science while Pinker wants science to continue investigating and correcting itself.

Pinker and Illustration

In order to truly understand the reality, we need to have our short-comings as man accounted for. Steven Pinker takes up the defense of science in his essay, “Science Is Not Your Enemy.” In this essay, Pinker writes, “To understand the world, we must cultivate work-arounds for our cognitive limitations, including skepticism, open debate, formal precision, and empirical tests, often requiring feats of ingenuity.” If we don’t have skepticism, any story is true. If there is no open debate, skeptics can’t share why a story may be false. Formal precision and empirical tests are what root us to reality instead of whatever we fancy. These are important tools in discerning fact from fiction.  Let’s remove skeptism from science and bring it into politics. In 1988, George H W Bush made has declaration at the Republican National Convention: “Read my lips: no new taxes.” Imagine if someone at the time within the RNC said he didn’t believe Bush. He would be right as taxes were raised under his administration. Now it is dishonest to blame Bush for this tax increase. However if a little skeptism was applied, the idea that taxes being raised under Bush’s tenure was completely possible. If that idea was prevalent in the minds of American voters, it is quite possible that Bush would have lost to his opponent, Michael Dukakis. This is an example of how we like to go with what we like and not what is necessarily true. This is why we need something to account for our errors as man, or we may end up like disappointed republicans after Bush raised taxes.

Jonah Lehrer’s main argument, or arguments, is one of two things, or possibly both. The main idea is to insert art in to the sciences and sciences into the arts. This leads to the two possible main arguments. The first is that art can be used to model the theoretics of science. This would allow a more visual look at the theories as to come up with better questions or other ways forward on finding coming closer to the larger questions on reality. The second is that art is how science gets to the common man. This is, I believe, just the practical side of science.

I don’t necessarily disagree with these main points, but his whole essay is so boring and infuriating at the same time. Him arriving to some of these conclusions just took so long. It takes him a little over a page to get to his “thesis.” It’s like you already know where he’s going, but you have no idea when he’s going to get there because he takes so long. I also couldn’t help but think about the “god of the gaps” argument, except with art. Sometimes it just sounded like, “well science has created more questions than it has answered so let’s through some art in there.” That is actually how it seemed his ideas were presented. There were also two major problems I’ve found. One is the things that “feel” true. Just because some things experienced in say a novel feel true, does not mean it is actually true. Second is the subjectivity of art. Science is supposed to be objective. If we add the subjectivity of art into science, what is then truly true. I am alright with the use of art for generation of new ideas or the delivery to the public, but having a mix, I think, would be detrimental on what is actual true.

Reductionism: The idea of reducing ideas into more basic explanations
Epiphenomenon: a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside the primary phenomenon
Synapse: Structure that permits a neuron or nerve cell to transfer an electric charge to another neuron or nerve cell

I have no goals for my annotations. I just point out what I think. This also isn’t something I would annotate any more than I already did.

1. Yo-Yo Ma, a cellist and song-writer writes about the importance of art in education. Originally published on World-Post, a partnership between the liberal Huffington Post and the Berggruen Institute on Governance*.
2. If I weren’t reading this for a class, I would have never finished it. I do come from a more science-based background, so I may have had a negative opinion because of that. I agree with some of his concepts, but disagree on his idea of implementation.
3. He is talking about having more art within STEM education. He sites a few things in neurology to show the importance of the logical and emotional sides of our brains. He also talks about how we need both to have a more fulfilling life.

*Berggruen Institute on Governance: Now just the Berggruen Institute is dedicated to the design and implementation of good governance within the globalisation context.
Sarabande: A slow dance in triple meter, of Spanish origion.
Silk Road Project: Now just Silkroad is a project dedicated to the cooperation of artists to promote multicultural exchange.

Anne Lamott’s essay, Shitty First Drafts, proves quite entertaining and rings true in many aspects. The one thing that didn’t really relate to me was first drafts being longer than they should be. It depends on what I’m writing about, but I tend to be on the short side. However I do relate to the writer who told Lamott, “He sits down every morning and says to himself nicely, ‘It’s not like you don’t have a choice, because you do — you can either type, or kill yourself.'” And that’s how essays happen as I’m still here. In reality, I know my first draft of anything is going to be terrible and I would rather throw it in a garbage fire before having anyone read it. Hell, someone could read my 501st draft and say it’s the best thing I’ve ever written, and I’d still want to throw it in a garbage fire.

Revision Strategy Plan

#1-Goal: Make paper not terrible
Sub-Goals: Work with some of the ideas I got from peer review and play with the moving of paragraphs and quotes

#2-The Plan
1. Review things from peer review
2. Create first draft of new paragraphs
3. Review all paragraphs to see if each has coherent idea
4. Move paragraphs here, there, and everywhere until it works
5. Second draft created
6. Have someone else read it to make sure my point is actually getting across
-If not, go back a few steps
7. Editing for sentence and word level error
8. Product

#3-Challenge
1. “It’s not like you don’t have a choice, because you do — you can either type, or kill yourself.” (I enjoy this quote and using it)
2. I can’t tell if my point is being made well enough or not
3. I missed things that need to be fixed

#4-Over coming
1. Moral support i.e. my girlfriend
2. Literally anyone willing to read my paper
3. Literally anyone willing to read my paper but is also pretty good with English and grammar

It was actually pretty easy to ignore the small sentence and word based errors and just focus on the ideas and overall organisation of the essays I read. I still noticed them, but I was not compelled to correct them. Focusing on the big picture kind of distracts from those smaller errors. Sort of like, “it doesn’t concern me right now so I don’t care.” These are also first drafts, so they’re all kind of bad in some way. I’m not excluding my essay from that either. I hope those who reviewed mine tore it apart. Draft one is just bring ideas to paper, and that’s by any means. It needs to be viewed on a more grand scale opposed to nitpicks because of how rough it is. On top of that, it gives me ideas reading other’s papers. Not just ideas for what to write about, but how to go about writing about it. This can be because I liked the way something someone else wrote worked well or how it didn’t work. That is great for people who can learn through observation, but it also helps those who learn more by doing. Having someone else view your work can point out what works and doesn’t work in it. Global editing helps both the editor and the writer.

In the medical field, military metaphors, such as “fighting” a disease or a patient is a “fighter,” are quite commonplace. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? The answer isn’t black and white. These metaphors can help people work through their illnesses while it may be a detriment to others. Metaphors are difficult. No one knows what their exact effect will be from individual to individual. But that’s language. We say what we say to exchange our thoughts with others, and metaphors just another part of that. Sometimes our thoughts don’t make it to the other person as we intend, and that gives them different ideas or feelings. Metaphor is a vital part of our language, and the effects of metaphor cannot be known before it is used. This can be quite a problem when it comes to the emotional state of a medical patient. Metaphor is used to help understand their situation. It may have unforeseen effects, but its overall interpretation and effect is up the patient.

Take 2

Our current use of metaphors within medicine has historically been related to militaristic terms. Things that relate patients with fighters or disease with a battle.These militaristic metaphors help in the understanding of their situation, but can leave a detrimental effect emotionally. With this in mind, I pose a question: is the continued use of this style of metaphor a good way of informing a patient of their situation? There is not a definite yes or no for this question. The detrimental side-effects may or may not affect a patient. In fact these metaphors can be a boon for some of them. Most people have had someone they love in medical care. How are these metaphors affecting them? How is it helping them understand their situation and affecting their overall mental and emotional state? Metaphors are a vital part of the language and provision of understanding. However the side-effects of these military metaphors in medicine are varied from patient to patient that there should be some alternatives.

In James Geary’s TED Talk, Metaphorically Speaking, he explains how the metaphor works. He gives a simple understanding of metaphors, X=Y, before going into a multitude of examples. These examples come with explanations and some audience participation. He leaves everything rather open ended ending with “metaphor keeps the mind shaking, rattling and rolling.”

In See through words, Michael Erard writes about the designing of metaphors tied into how they work. He calls the making of metaphors the creation of “psuedo-mistakes.” These pseudo-mistakes sometimes need to be explained so the right meaning is translated properly. Erard makes it quite clear that a misunderstood metaphor is no good and can lead to bad implications.

In The Trouble With Medicine’s Metaphors, Dhruv Khullar discusses militaristic metaphors within the medical field. He writes about these metaphors can sometimes of adverse effects on a patient. He gives examples of these adverse effects happening, both in medical and non medical setting. He does mention that these types of metaphors can work, and that it is  up to the patient to look at their ailments in their own way.

Metaphors, like language, is tool to help other people understand an idea or ideas. Therefor, metaphors in relation to how we perceive our bodies and health is similar to language itself. All language can change our views of ourselves. However, language as whole is more direct. If someone is trying to make you feel bad, they may something to the effect of “you suck and nobody likes you.” That may hurt some feelings, but sticks and stones and all that. But what if language was a little more covert. It would seem there is quite a bit of evidence to support that there are some unwanted psychological effects with metaphors. This can affect anyone without realising it. Even though metaphors are another tool for us to better communicate ideas with each other, these adverse effects can prove rather difficult.

Quotes

“Metaphorical thinking is essential to how we understand ourselves and others, how we communicate, learn, discover and invent” -James Geary, Metaphorically Speaking

“But whenever we give a thing a name that belongs to something else, we give it a whole network of analogies too.” -James Geary, Metaphorically Speaking

“Once we loose a metaphor into the world, it will be blocked by other ways of thinking that change its meaning or disrupt its interpretation.” -Michael Erard, See through words

“Patients who view their disease as an ‘enemy’ tend to have higher levels of depression and anxiety, and poorer quality of life than those who ascribe a more positive meaning.” – Dhruv Khullar, The Trouble With Medicine’s Metaphors

“Whether she came to see her illness as a battle, journey, marathon, rollercoaster, chess match-or none of the above. But I do know it wasn’t my decision to make.” – Dhruv Khullar, The Trouble With Medicine’s Metaphors

While reading Micheal Erard’s See through words, I noticed I was being way more critical of what he was saying. My first read though was just trying to figure out what he was saying. I did so quite unsuccessfully. This second time I think I understood a few more things. These new understandings, I think, are fairly unimportant. For example, I understand the Enron accounting scandal now as well as a basic idea of epigenetics. I would say these have no real baring on the understanding of the text. My lack of understanding of the text probably comes from my apathy towards what Erard is saying as well as I simply cannot easily gauge information from his writing style.

As for my criticisms, I found he spoke quite authoritatively along with a few miscellaneous complaints. In my opinion, he writes as if he know everything. I had this thought on the first page when he writes, “They’re [metaphors] meant to make someone realise that they’ve only been looking at one side of a thing.” I think metaphors can be used in many ways and do not have one true meaning. He also claims that once metaphors are interpreted differently than the author intended, it’s a bad thing. However, this happens with any and all other types of literary works, or any form of art really. Is that a bad thing too? I wouldn’t say so. People are going to interpret things differently, and those differences are what generates discussion.  Open discourse is the way to find what is “right and wrong” if there truly is a right and wrong. The point is, I personally don’t like how Erard speaks like his opinions on metaphors are fact.

The most obvious things I noticed through out See through words by Micheal Erard was home much I did not understand his metaphors. For example, it took me two more pages of reading to actually kind of get the paint brush to pump metaphor. There were a few points Erard would use a metaphor and it would go straight over my head. This led to, I believe, a lack of understanding on his general ideas. It made the point about somethings need to be spelled out for strong though. However I still don’t understand what the purpose of talking about “paintbrush as pump” was about, or the metaphors about “an apt metaphor.” Even when explained, I still don’t understand it. This all culminates to the statement, “I feel like I can’t find the window.”

Another major thing I noticed was how Erard kind of strips away anything fun about metaphors. It makes sense because he is a metaphor designer which is basically a marketer, at least in my opinion.  To me, it kind of sounded like was belittling how Dante or Rilke came up with their metaphors. I understand that metaphors are designed, but that’s isn’t exactly the thought of a writer or poet. They think of the best way to relate what they think to the people reading. Is there some design involved in doing that? Of course there is. However what I’m positing is that the goal is to paint a picture, not to target people for other reasons. This is just from the beginning, and the rest of what Erard had to say aligned with my above criticisms. He explored the powers metaphors have and the dangers that presents. I didn’t know that’s where he was going on page one.

Apologies for the poor print job

I am not super active in the online space, so this is a newer thing for me. I haven’t had enough time to play around with this and that just yet. With the little I have used this website, I do enjoy it. I can’t say much else because I haven’t used this enough yet. I assume I will have problems in the future as all technology has its limits, but I have good first impression.

Update: the header picture is giving me so much trouble, and it’s slightly infuriating.