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

Javier Pulido Biosca

 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.



[1] D. Wilson and Z. Bowen. Science and Literature. P. 48.