Walt Whitman's observation on astronomers.

[Relpet]

 

[ollypenrice]

I react to this as unfavourably as I react to Paul Dirac's observation on poetry: In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in the case of poetry, it's the exact opposite!

Both the poet Whitman and the scientist Dirac are entirely missing the point of the activity they don't practise. It would take me a lengthy paragraph to explain what's wrong with Dirac's assertion but less time to refute Whitman. Scientific astronomy must, indeed, begin with rigorous measurement, classification and mathematical analysis but lists and figures are not its end. They are the springboards for astonishing leaps of conceptual thinking which take us on the most exhilarating and counter-intuitive adventures of the mind. Although Whitman died in 1892 we can, with the poetic license he could hardly deny us, imagine him walking out of an Einstein lecuture before hearing the bit about time and space no longer being constants and about 'now,' having no meaning at great distances. More fool Walt Whitman, say I. Besides, who says that we must choose between learned astronomy and gazing at the night sky in wonder? Cannot we do do both?

Olly

 

Edited June 2, 2019 by ollypenrice

[Gina]

Indeed!

[Relpet]

14 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Besides, who says that we must choose between learned astronomy and gazing at the night sky in wonder? Cannot we do do both?

Olly

 

We sure can, Olly.  Whitman wrote his piece in 1855 at a time when great strides were starting in American astronomy and which progress he followed all his life.  I guess the growth in the number of astronomers would lead to the growth in the number of theories being postulated giving rise to lectures which he found added nothing to his enduring love of the actual night sky.  I've always found Whitman a bit over-blown for my taste but his excitement at the discovery of two moons of Mars, his conjecture that there were galaxies beyond the Milky Way and even the possible existence of universes beyond ours suggests he was not thinking idly when he wrote the piece.

Neil deGrasse Tyson who recited the poem in the clip is a distinguished astro-physicist, as is Janna Levin who recited the poem at a gathering in New York City.  I posted the clip to encourage people who might otherwise be intimidated by the science and so overlook the magic of the night sky and, boy, would Whitman have found magic in the unpolluted skies of 1855.

Cheers,

Peter

[Demonperformer]

On 02/06/2019 at 09:31, ollypenrice said:

More fool Walt Whitman, say I.

Quite agree - You can't push a rope!

[bingevader]

1 hour ago, Demonperformer said:

Quite agree - You can't push a rope!

Maybe a very small piece?

I've always thought that the science added to the wonder rather than detracting from it.

But, you don't need an understanding of science to enjoy the night's sky.

Poetry would seem to differ in that respect.

You at least need a grasp of the language it is written in.

Some poetry is beautiful.

But then sometimes it becomes a code to be cracked with hidden meaning, that only those who fathom the code can understand.

Astronomy (or at least amateur astronomy, or even stargazing!) isn't like that. 

You can just enjoy it for what it is. 

[ollypenrice]

21 minutes ago, bingevader said:

Maybe a very small piece?

I've always thought that the science added to the wonder rather than detracting from it.

But, you don't need an understanding of science to enjoy the night's sky.

Poetry would seem to differ in that respect.

You at least need a grasp of the language it is written in.

Some poetry is beautiful.

But then sometimes it becomes a code to be cracked with hidden meaning, that only those who fathom the code can understand.

Astronomy (or at least amateur astronomy, or even stargazing!) isn't like that. 

You can just enjoy it for what it is. 

I feel that there are false dichotomies abounding in most discussions in this area. Mallarmé could have been talking to Dirac rather than to Edgar Degas when he said that poetry isn't made with ideas, it is made with words. Clearly Dirac doesn't understand this because he focuses his comment on what is said (the central idea) rather than how it is said, which is what poetry is about. The idea that poetry is sometimes 'a code' is an analogy which, like most analogies, breaks down under pressure. The purpose of a code is to exclude readers who do not posses the key. This is hardly ever the case with poetry. The nearest I can think of would be some of the WW1 poets like Owen whose work, it seems, contains a homosexual sub-text understood only within that community. But, in general, when poetry is obscure it is because it is a work of art constructed on many levels, not all of which are obvious and the mental effort of unraveling them is part of the pleasure of reading poetry (an activity which is not compulsory and doesn't please everyone!)

Another false dichotomy appears when scientific endeavour is set against contemplating the mystery of it all. In my view science is the act of contemplating and engaging with the mystery of it all. By its very nature science lives at the edge of the unknown. When we climb the mountain of scientific discovery it gives us the best possible vantage point from which to marvel at the mysterious unknown. Indeed I think that Relativity and, even more so, Quantum Theory, have increased what is known to a far lesser degree than they have increased our awareness of what is not known. I think this is absolutely excellent!

Olly

[andrew s]

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

 When we climb the mountain of scientific discovery it gives us the best possible vantage point from which to marvel at the mysterious unknown. Indeed I think that Relativity and, even more so, Quantum Theory, have increased what is known to a far lesser degree than they have increased our awareness of what is not known. I think this is absolutely excellent!

Olly

Not sure I subscribe to that. Science certainly has built a vantage point from which to marvel at the the Universe from the very large to the very small. However, it has also provided a language, mathematics, in which to encode its mysteries.  Like poetry  it can be read at many levels. Unfortunately,  at the surface pop level, it is all to often presented as magical almost occult with spooky interactions. Leading, I feel, to the view a lot is not known.

We know a vast amount about what happens (in this sense not much is left to know, at least in the energy range accessible to us) but science is mute on the why it happens. For that we need poetry and the other creative arts.

Regards Andrew 

PS Consider reading "Paradise Lost" without knowing the Bible well. It would be a good story but much would be missed. So it is with science if you don't have the mathematical tools to behold its creations.

[ollypenrice]

28 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Not sure I subscribe to that. Science certainly has built a vantage point from which to marvel at the the Universe from the very large to the very small. However, it has also provided a language, mathematics, in which to encode its mysteries.  Like poetry  it can be read at many levels. Unfortunately,  at the surface pop level, it is all to often presented as magical almost occult with spooky interactions. Leading, I feel, to the view a lot is not known.

We know a vast amount about what happens (in this sense not much is left to know, at least in the energy range accessible to us) but science is mute on the why it happens. For that we need poetry and the other creative arts.

Regards Andrew 

PS Consider reading "Paradise Lost" without knowing the Bible well. It would be a good story but much would be missed. So it is with science if you don't have the mathematical tools to behold its creations.

But, before Relativity, did anyone really consider the notion that time and space might not be constant? (From what I remember, Lorenz and Fazackerley toyed with the idea mathematically but didn't consider it a candidate for physical reality.) So, in that sense, Relativity added to our understanding but also added to the strangeness, and hence the mystery, of what remains to be known. Indeed, we are now at the point at which philosophers of science, and many plain scientists, are asking whether our brains, as they have evolved, will allow us to increase our understanding indefinitely. I wonder if the great minds of the 19th century would have been ready to accept this idea? Lord Kelvin felt that physicis was almost complete. Nobody today holds such a view, which is why I feel that the unkown is expanding faster than the known, in a sense.

Olly

[andrew s]

Ok at @Olly, we will have to agree to differ. I don't  find relativity or quantum mechanics strange, amazing and powerful yes strange no. I suspect  it is a matter of familiarity.

I accept that with the success of the science of the Industrial Revolution scientists thought science was complete. Maybe I am similarly mistaken but we have now probed the extent of the observable universe and the subatomic at Tev. There will undoubtedly be better new theories but just a Newtons laws work well at our normal every day encounters so will our current theories at the energies we can reasonably muster. 

Broadly what do you think is unknown? I suspect you will say dark energy and dark matter but we can characterise them quite well and measure their effects as well as say an electron.

Regards Andrew 

 

Edited June 5, 2019 by andrew s

[Peter Drew]

I once read a quote that went along the lines of "The greater the island of knowledge, the greater the foreshore of the unknown". Summed things up quite well for me.  😀

[Helen]

1 hour ago, Peter Drew said:

I once read a quote that went along the lines of "The greater the island of knowledge, the greater the foreshore of the unknown". Summed things up quite well for me.  😀

^^ This! 

I'm currently trying to write the literature review for my end of first year PhD report (on comets) and all I'm learning is that there is more and more I don't understand!

Helen

[ollypenrice]

8 hours ago, andrew s said:

Ok at @Olly, we will have to agree to differ. I don't  find relativity or quantum mechanics strange, amazing and powerful yes strange no. I suspect  it is a matter of familiarity.

I accept that with the success of the science of the Industrial Revolution scientists thought science was complete. Maybe I am similarly mistaken but we have now probed the extent of the observable universe and the subatomic at Tev. There will undoubtedly be better new theories but just a Newtons laws work well at our normal every day encounters so will our current theories at the energies we can reasonably muster. 

Broadly what do you think is unknown? I suspect you will say dark energy and dark matter but we can characterise them quite well and measure their effects as well as say an electron.

Regards Andrew 

 

I'm wary of speaking for Einstein but he found, my reading suggests, that the probabalistic nature of quantum theory was unacceptable to him. 'God does not play at dice.' Bohr's sublime repost, 'Stop telling God what to do,' is another way (and a better one) of saying what I'm trying to say. Prior to quantum theory nobody in science had thought that God (or nature) was playing at dice. You can bet that Newton wouldn't have fancied the idea. So the idea that god/nature might be playing at dice was not an idea anyone had previously had to contend with. But this unexpected idea appeared in the course of scientific enquiry and so the unkown expanded. So this concurs with Peter Drew's exquisite quotation, "The greater the island of knowledge, the greater the foreshore of the unknown". Summed things up quite well for me.'

What do I think is unknown? I'm nobody, but what does my reading of science tell me that scientist think is unknown? I'll limit my reply to things that I don't believe 19th century scientists were worrying about:  Are other dimensions real? Can wave-particle duality be resolved conceptually by introducing a new word (like slithy tove . I believe this joke goes back to Eddington but am not sure.) Is space, rather than time, illusory? (Einstein thought time illusory. More recently space has come under scrutiny.) Does the many worlds hypothesis carry too much metaphysical baggage to be worth consideration? Can the block universe hypothesis resolve problems of cause and effect and free will? What I'm getting that is that these questions have arisen because 'the foreshore of the unknown' has indeed expanded.

Olly

[Marvin Jenkins]

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

[andrew s]

Hi @Olly, I better understand your view now. 

I think the issues you raise have existed for along time but are asked in new terms as the theories advance.  Its a new shore but the fundamental issues remain. What is or not real, is space or time illusory , is this the only universe. You can trace these question throughout the history of science, philosophy and religion.

I don't  think  science can answer them.

My own view is reality just is. It does not care if we like the way it works or not be it me you or Einstein. Boltzmann might have a view on quantum theory being the first case of probability in science.

Don't get me wrong I see wonder and unanswered questions but for me they are of two types. Ones of detail and complexity or (like your examples)  of philosophy and metaphysics.  None the worse for that.

Regards Andrew 

Edited June 5, 2019 by andrew s

[Relpet]

14 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

when poetry is obscure it is because it is a work of art constructed on many levels, not all of which are obvious and the mental effort of unraveling them is part of the pleasure of reading poetry (an activity which is not compulsory and doesn't please everyone!)

Another false dichotomy appears when scientific endeavour is set against contemplating the mystery of it all. In my view science is the act of contemplating and engaging with the mystery of it all. By its very nature science lives at the edge of the unknown. When we climb the mountain of scientific discovery it gives us the best possible vantage point from which to marvel at the mysterious unknown. Indeed I think that Relativity and, even more so, Quantum Theory, have increased what is known to a far lesser degree than they have increased our awareness of what is not known.

I hadn't expected to start such a discussion and I'm not sure I have the knowledge to make telling points but sometimes the best scientific writing is so lucid it could be placed on the same level as classical prose.  It isn't designed to give an impression but to convey the most accurate representation of the idea in the writer's mind.  Lucidity is the way to spread understanding. Poetry, music, art are perhaps aimed at a different part of the human psyche, designed to share feelings and which may not strike the same chord in everyone.  The best scientific speakers also strive to convey their exact meaning, avoiding cliché, searching for the right word.  They want their ideas to take root, not provoke an emotional response. 

Picking up Olly's last point, in a broadcast from New York hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Janna Levin - a world authority on black holes - said she wasn't looking for easy answers.  The challenge was in the search for the right answers and the physics relating to the inner nature of black holes perhaps currently represents the most challenging area of what is not known.  The astrophysicists may still be looking for the answers but there's nothing to stop a poet composing his dreamy view. 

[ollypenrice]

8 hours ago, Relpet said:

I hadn't expected to start such a discussion and I'm not sure I have the knowledge to make telling points but sometimes the best scientific writing is so lucid it could be placed on the same level as classical prose.  It isn't designed to give an impression but to convey the most accurate representation of the idea in the writer's mind.  Lucidity is the way to spread understanding. Poetry, music, art are perhaps aimed at a different part of the human psyche, designed to share feelings and which may not strike the same chord in everyone.  The best scientific speakers also strive to convey their exact meaning, avoiding cliché, searching for the right word.  They want their ideas to take root, not provoke an emotional response. 

Picking up Olly's last point, in a broadcast from New York hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, Janna Levin - a world authority on black holes - said she wasn't looking for easy answers.  The challenge was in the search for the right answers and the physics relating to the inner nature of black holes perhaps currently represents the most challenging area of what is not known.  The astrophysicists may still be looking for the answers but there's nothing to stop a poet composing his dreamy view. 

Agreed. Good prose, when the intention is to render a difficult idea simply, is not only effective but inherently elegant.

Olly

[billyharris72]

I'm not sure on this poem - it could be taken as part of the old "two cultures" dichotomy (okay, I admit, it definitely is), but it's not that bad.

I didn't take its main thrust as astronomer bashing but as pointing to difference between the (interesting, valuable, fascinating) world of astronomy (done mostly in offices, lecture rooms and these days computer labs) and the experience of just looking up (from a body, on a moist evening, with human eyes) at the night sky. I'm not convinced that human endeavour since Copernicus has added to the fundamentals of that experience at all. Ignorance might not be bliss, but neither is knowledge; bliss is just looking up.

I like both, for what it's worth, but I can understand from my time in academic and other analytical pursuits the idea of being tired and sick, even with subjects that fascinate me.

Billy.

[billyharris72]

More confusing to me is Edgar Allan Poe. A man passionately interested in science (Eureka is all over the place but you can't deny his interest), arguably the inventor of science fiction (we'll leave Kepler's Somnium out for now), author of a prose poem in praise of Humboldt. And author of this (warning: what follows is not great).

Sonnet - to Science

Science! true daughter of Old Time thou art!

   Who alterest all things with thy peering eyes.

Why preyest thou thus upon the poet’s heart,

   Vulture, whose wings are dull realities?

How should he love thee? or how deem thee wise,

   Who wouldst not leave him in his wandering

To seek for treasure in the jewelled skies,

   Albeit he soared with an undaunted wing?

Hast thou not dragged Diana from her car,

   And driven the Hamadryad from the wood

To seek a shelter in some happier star?

   Hast thou not torn the Naiad from her flood,

The Elfin from the green grass, and from me

The summer dream beneath the tamarind tree?

 

Never got my head around this.

Billy.

[bingevader]

But if you don't see the beauty in science, it could be seen as just exposing the dull realities.

There be dragons? - no there aren't.

Mermaids? - nope, sea lions, walruses and narwhals.

Magical Rainbows? - Nah, just the diffraction of light through a raindrop.

[Demonperformer]

8 minutes ago, bingevader said:

There be dragons? - no there aren't.

There are on Komodo.

[Relpet]

9 hours ago, billyharris72 said:

 Hast thou not torn

 from me

The summer dream beneath the tamarind tree?

Poe, in typical over-blown 19th century style, suggests he prefers the myth to the maths.; realising the sensation in his own brain of the beauty he sees with his own eyes yet still enjoying the imaginative interpretations of the myth-makers of the past.  He finds the science as painful as a child being told there ain't no Santy Claus.  Had he, and they, been able to see the celestial images we see in the 21st century he, and they, would be as rapt in wonder as we are but, though acknowledging  everything the physicists say,  probably still regarding the scientific explanations as secondary to the awe-inspiring images. - I humbly suggest.

[bingevader]

On 06/06/2019 at 16:34, Demonperformer said:

There are on Komodo.

Sadly, completely lacking in the fire-breathing and flight departments.

[7170]

On 08/06/2019 at 08:18, bingevader said:

Sadly, completely lacking in the fire-breathing and flight departments.

They had to stop all that fun stuff......health and safety.

[Demonperformer]

Actually, the fire-breathing stopped when the last of the dragons were chased into a river in Wales by a bunch of ghostly collies, quenching their inner fire and replacing it with an outer fire (submerging them in water changed them into sheep), all thanks to two elderly saints named George and Francis.

At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it!