When I heard the learn’d astronomer

[toml42]

I would be interested in hearing some reactions to this poem by Walt Whitman:

When I heard the learn’d astronomer;

When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;

When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them;

When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,

How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;

Till rising and gliding out, I wander’d off by myself,

In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,

Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

[omneferuss]

a poet, sensualist, admirer of mirages might not want his delicate fantasies abruptly and rudely perturbed by the gravitational tidal forces of 100 solar masses...

he might rather waft airily and his perfumed handkerchief wave away the billions of years and unimaginable distances to clear his view of the picturesquely framed tableau that says "Home Sweet Home" to him.

...perhaps better to take the knowledge into the field than the picture into the lecture theatre... and leave no place for the faireys and spooks, save, but as woven metaphorically by a wordsmith such as Shakespeare.

[simon84]

Kind of how I feel about astronomy, not too bothered about the science, just enjoy the spectacle of it all.

[Astro_Baby]

For me its a kind of communion so I am with Whitman on this one - or at least closer to his side of the field than to Dorkins or Hawking

Its the majesty of it all and I find the science often gets in the way of it - by making its explainable (or at least theorisable even if the theories wrong which it probably is anyway) just seems to diminsih it in some way - rather like a small dog yelping all the way through the B' Minor Mass

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

Those are quotes by Albert and I would find them pretty well describing my point of view and in fewer words

[hunterknox]

I would like to refer you to Richard Feynman on the beauty of a flower. Keats took a similar viewpoint to Whitman. Feynman was a better creative artist than either of them.

[toml42]

I would like to refer you to Richard Feynman on the beauty of a flower. Keats took a similar viewpoint to Whitman. Feynman was a better creative artist than either of them.

ohh, superb sir, you beat me too it! i was going to refer the exact same clip once viewing a cross section of opinions. I have two further references to share:

Richard Dawkins: Unweaving the Rainbow.

An inspirational, and relatively short book, refuting the idea that poetry and science must be opposed.

To those of you who feel science detracts from beauty, whilst i respect your differing opinions, i really feel you're missing out.

Sure, nebula are pretty in their own right, but don't forget, this may be the wreckage of an exploded star that in its moment outshone our entire galaxy, and from ruins like this spawned our own sun and everything in the solar system, including us. You are looking at your origins.

Saturns rings look gorgeous, and solid - but they are a cloud of countless billions of constantly colliding balls of snow and ice, twisted and sculpted by orbiting moons, in some places a metre thick

Would that faint smear in your eyepiece be so exciting if you didn't know it was a galaxy of 400 billion suns, that the light you are viewing was emitted before mankind evolved?

All of this is courtesy of scientific knowledge, and it transforms my observing experience completely

[RobH]

I hop this doesn't come across as religion folks...it's not meant to....I consider it to be philosophy, and for me, the first verse of the Tao Te Ching sums it all up perfectly.......

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao

The name that can be named is not the eternal name

The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth

The named is the mother of myriad things

Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence

Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations

These two emerge together but differ in name

The unity is said to be the mystery

Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

Rob

[Talitha]

I would be interested in hearing some reactions to this poem by Walt Whitman:

When I heard the learn’d astronomer;

When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;

When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them;

When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,

How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick;

Till rising and gliding out, I wander’d off by myself,

In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,

Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

It's just Walt's way of saying "less is more".

[hunterknox]

It's just Walt's way of saying "less is more".

Ironic that it took him eight lines!

[great_bear]

the first verse of the Tao Te Ching sums it all up perfectly...

Revisiting that years later, its enigmatic nature is revealed as little more than a shallow facade. All it's doing is calling into question the basic limitations of taxonomy. Whilst those unschooled in the sciences might smile wistfully and mutter "how true, how true...", those of us who actually labor our days away on this stuff (in my case, object-oriented audio software systems design) are brutally aware of the fact that, that which is modeled, is not the actual object, and that all of our abstractions are - by definition - limited.

It doesn't mean that you've lost the ability to see the world in the absence of such abstractions.

I'm sure this kind of pseudo-philosophy is written by those trying to regain a sense of superiority through ignorance - i.e. "I see with better eyes than you, for mine are untainted"

[Talitha]

Ironic that it took him eight lines!

Poetic license.

[RobH]

Revisiting that years later, its enigmatic nature is revealed as little more than a shallow facade. All it's doing is calling into question the basic limitations of taxonomy. Whilst those unschooled in the sciences might smile wistfully and mutter "how true, how true...", those of us who actually labor our days away on this stuff (in my case, object-oriented audio software systems design) are brutally aware of the fact that, that which is modeled, is not the actual object, and that all of our abstractions are - by definition - limited.

It doesn't mean that you've lost the ability to see the world in the absence of such abstractions.

I'm sure this kind of pseudo-philosophy is written by those trying to regain a sense of superiority through ignorance - i.e. "I see with better eyes than you, for mine are untainted"

Gosh....that sounded far more abstract than the lovely bit of poetry I quoted

You missed the bit at the end of your post that says....'In my opinion', just as you missed the bit in mine that says...'for me'.

I will henceforth consider myself admonished by a superior intellect.

:D:D:D:D

[Astro_Baby]

Would that faint smear in your eyepiece be so exciting if you didn't know it was a galaxy of 400 billion suns, that the light you are viewing was emitted before mankind evolved?

Oh I think it probably would be if I believed it was the remains of the galaxy eating goat whose dung creates life in the universe. Of if I believed it was the remains of the Moon Goddess after she gave birth to the planets.

See what I mean - the science isnt essential for the wonder - only the mystic is required.

[toml42]

I wasn't arguing that science is essential to the sense of wonder, only that in my view it adds to it, rather than removing something.

[hunterknox]

I like my poems as much as the next man, but I can't argue with Paul Dirac's cutting summation:

"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!"

On a related point, I wonder what proportion of SGLers got into astronomy via the equations, rather than by being blown away by the visual splendour? Low I'd guess .

[Helen]

I like my poems as much as the next man, but I can't argue with Paul Dirac's cutting summation:

"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!"

On a related point, I wonder what proportion of SGLers got into astronomy via the equations, rather than by being blown away by the visual splendour? Low I'd guess .

Both in my case! The voyager pictures and the elegance of Kepler's laws came together for me while studying applied maths at uni. I've been fascinated ever since

Helen

[great_bear]

I wonder what proportion of SGLers got into astronomy via the equations, rather than by being blown away by the visual splendour? Low I'd guess .

I'm not so sure. It must be both to a large degree - not so much equations but the numbers; i.e. just how vast everything is. I suspect that many people find the visual splendor a little disappointing compared to media imagery - although I do find the moon knocks everyone's socks off (and Saturn's got wow-factor too of course!)

[great_bear]

You missed the bit at the end of your post that says....'In my opinion'

Could it be mistaken for being otherwise?

[Astro_Baby]

I feel a poll coming on

[hunterknox]

It must be both to a large degree - not so much equations but the numbers; i.e. just how vast everything is.

Good point! I remember the thing that really blew me away as a kid, way before I had a telescope, was the bit in my Usborne book of space where it said that a teaspoon sized lump of a neutron star would weigh about 5,000,000,000,000 tons. By the same token, maybe in a parallel universe there's a version of me who got the Usborne book of economics and is now an economist because he read about an astronomical fiscal deficit.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Kind of how I feel about astronomy, not too bothered about the science, just enjoy the spectacle of it all.

Same here.

The poet got bored with all the talking about this and that and all the number crunching etc.

I like the poem.