Category: October 3 (Page 1 of 4)

Professor Hanlon opened his presentation by making a remark about the structure of our campus. Facing Miller Library from the bottom of the hill, humanities studies take place on one’s left and sciences occupy the right. Arts are isolated from this structure, with theatre on one far side of the campus and visual and music hidden behind the science complexes. There is a clear physical divide between disciplines. One can easily dispel the issue by claiming it is a matter of convenience. However, as a liberal arts college, Colby prides itself on the interdisciplinary and boasts that its students are well rounded and apt in multiple subjects. So why does it force students wishing to broaden their horizons to trudge across campus in the grueling winter? Not exactly what I deem the definition of convenience. In fact, I might even call it a deterrent.

Aside from edu-geographical issues, Professor Hanlon’s presentation was mostly concerned with the Royal society and the novel, two major forces which see their origins around the same time in history.

Hanlon provides an overview of the Royal Society and mentions their motto, ‘nullius in verba’, which translates to ‘take nobody’s word for it’. The Society focused heavily on pure observational science and detailed accounts of experimentation and research, without an overwhelming focus on ‘why’ or ‘how’.

Hanlon mentions the novel by S. Fielding, published in 1744, which bears the title ‘The Adventures of David Simple: Containing An Account of his Travels Through the Cities of London and Westminster In the Search of A Real Trend’ or its abridged title ’David Simple, The Adventures of, in Search of a Real Friend’. Hanlon explains that the novels of the era were far form fantastical. They focused on the quotidian, with a strong emphasis on realism. They sought to teach through their attention to detail and the particular. Hanlon argues that these novels led to a development in observational science where contextual knowledge could be built upon understanding of others’ works.

This interdisciplinary link, focusing on the spread of observations enabling the creation of contextual knowledge, highlights a trend of constructivist learning which I believe we will see only increase in magnitude in coming years. As information becomes easier to share, observations are easily digested in the form of imagery and videos, and our literature becomes increasingly atomic in nature (think tweets, Facebook posts, reddit headlines), the focus on constructing one’s own knowledge will only grow. Although this is an overarchingly positive idea, encouraging critical thinking becomes more important than ever with this trend. As information becomes more digestible and begins to require less energy to process, we must find it in ourselves to verify what we ingest. We should construct learning from the information around us, but must not forget ‘nullius in verbs’.

[In reference to the issue of trudging across a snowy campus (mentioned in the first paragraph) the truly interdisciplinary solution would obviously be contracting a network of interweaving underground tunnels which serve to connect the disciplines and function as modular spaces. Most importantly, such a solution would also keep us warm during Maine winters. Get on it, Colby!]

English professor Aaron Hanlon separated his lecture and discussed the origins of the Novel and The Royal Society.  The latter captivated me the most.  The Royal Society of London was the elite science institution of its day. Science overtook religion as the dominant field in society. This was and a result of the scientific revolution that eventually birthed the society during the end of the 17th Century.  Professor Hanlon spoke on its first pioneers such as Robert Boyle who’s generosity helped see the society through during its early stages of formation. Francis Bacon who leadership and vision played crucial roles. John Wilkins and Christoper Wren whose inventions gave the society early respected reputation.

During its initial years, the Royal society was dedicated to the pursuit of objective knowledge. Tables however quickly turned and the society served to promote now larglely discredited sciences of racial and gender inequality through restricted memberships and various policies.

The state (British) chartered the scientific society in order to provide technical capability. The 15^th Century saw widespread European exploration and due to the prevalent ignorance of the time, theories that claimed human variances owing to differences in geographical location were published and widely consumed. With the rise of the age of knowledge, Europeans became further dedicated to the possibilities of human difference, leading to new fields of study to promote the concept.

The need and motivation behind the creation of these new fields of study (the sciences of inequality) was to position the Europeans on top of the new human race hierarchy. The Europeans discovered already civilizations away from Europe in the new world, Asia, and in Africa, and firmly wanted to secure a superior status backed by scientific findings. Early enlightenment writers aligned their research to this cause.  The Royal Society  provided the much needed materials and equipment to prove racial differences, and  acknowledged and funded scientists who were committed to creating new content. The society’s fellows pioneered new fields of study such as craniology, phrenology and anthropological sciences to promote racial views.

The partnership between the state and science societies brought about a shift from the initial efforts to invent, experiment and discover non-bias findings. During this time, The British empire was on a mission to establish themselves as the hegemon of the world. The same period saw the rise of nationalism in Europe: Nations felt that they had to acquire colonies overseas for national prestige. Nations claimed superiority over others. They wanted to acquire colonies to prove superiority.

David Bercovici, an esteemed professor and geophysicist, discussed with both our afternoon section and evening seminar the fine details (well, maybe only detailed to us) of the Big Bang, dark matter, Red Stars, habitable climates and our struggle to prevent climate change, alongside a number of relevant topics of “time and space.” Bercovici shared the the evolution of the recognition of science – that many initially searched for religion through comfort and origin stories. As scientific discovery progressed, fact and science served as the new gospel and bible, offering reassurance in the surrounding world and its existence. However, while we continue to scour every last centimeter of the earth, turning over every rock and boulder in our way, we face the same struggle of acceptance that those before us faced. While 7 billion humans inhabit the Earth, many more billions and trillions of organisms co-exist, mostly of course with no care, comprehension, or even awareness of “what the next generation may look like.”

It’s not only important to discover the information and truth that we seek scientifically, but also to ensure that it is relayed and communicated properly and effectively. Climate change is real, yes, and it is widely impactful, yes – but how do we convince anyone to care? Issues of understanding, comprehension, and most importantly, empathy, plague the majority of (at least) the United States, as partisan conflict gets increasingly worse alongside the climate’s state. A discussion of morality is often ignored in the scientific world as we seek answers and understanding. However, this discussion of morality is glossed over, when conservative parties deny and ignore the suggestions, nay, mandatory actions, issued by leading scientific discoverers. Bercovici (at least in this chapter) doesn’t fully address this idea of getting the reader to care on the importance of discovery, an increasingly vital issue we face.

So how do we convince one another of truth? While we now know that the Earth is round, it of course took years and years of explanation and convincing, despite having had the scientific truth for time before society was able to culturally accept this. Blind faith and trust in “what came first” is often reason enough for humanity to accept what is true, however when scientific inaccuracies are widely regarded first, it is massively difficult to alter our beliefs. Today, we live in a culture and society where truth is disregarded and inaccuracies flourish (especially politically), however in order for progress and unity to exist, this is an impossible barrier that must be broken.