Between the quantum and the cosmos

I found this set of readings really intriguing. Each one of them addressed an element of size and it's function within the universe. One discussed the vastness of the cosmos and the infinitesimal importance of a single sub-nuclear molecule. Another talked about the immense potential of energy. Finally, a third talked about how size matters, and the effect size can have on the way a creature functions.


I think it was most interesting to me because size is something that we often have a hard time fathoming. We cannot look at size objectively, and often if something is on either of the extreme ends of the spectrum, it cannot be truly understood by a human being. We can only look at size through the eyes of a human, therefore, we are limited in our view and understanding of what size is. We will inevitably compare the size of something to our own human size, and thus are limited to a fairly small range of understanding. We know an apple is generally about the size of the palm of our hand. It can be seen that a bear is probably 2-3 times the size of the average man. We easily compare a tube of chap stick to approximately the size of a pinky or ring finger. But we tend to have a hard time understanding, wholly, what we cannot see. We can't see an atom, nor can we see the entire universe. These things we can only understand to a certain extent. We can imagine them in comparison to the sizes of humanity, but we cannot truly grasp their expanses. We can't really compare an atom to the size of anything we can see. Maybe we could imagine it like a grain of sand, but even then a grain of sand could be infinitely larger than an atom itself. We can think of the universe in terms of the ocean, vast and far-reaching, and yet even the largest ocean is just a fraction of the size of the universe. The scale of it all is nearly impossible for us to truly understand because we have nothing to truly compare it to to gain human understanding of such things.

That's also what's so amazing about size. It both intrigues and terrifies us, something that Jeans is quick to point out, "We find the universe terrifying because of its vast meaningless distances, terrifying because of its inconceivably long vistas of time which dwarf human history to the twinkling of an eye, terrifying because of our extreme loneliness, and because of the material insignificance of our home in space--a millionth part of a grain of sand out of all the sea-sand in the world" (3). We want to know and understand the great vastness of everything that is out there, but it also terrifies us that we can't really know what else is out there, that we can't even begin to wrap our minds around how far-reaching it all can really be.

Writing and Whatnot

We often see science writing as dry, or boring, or a horrible waste of an hour that we will never get back. It is necessary that science and scientific discoveries are properly documented so that they can be passed onto the public in the best possible representation, and this is where science writing gets more interesting. When a layman reads science writing, and then caters it to a layman's reading needs, things can get lost in translation, which is why original science writing must be so dense and difficult to get through.

As we've covered a few times in this class, science writing doesn't necessarily have to be the god-awful boring reading experience that it often seems to be. Science writing doesn't have to be just about facts and figures, it doesn't have to be almost entirely comprised of materials, methods, and results. When we change the rhetorical situation, when we change the audience, we get to change the entertainment level of the writing. The main purpose, when presenting something to the public is "to celebrate rather than validate," according to Fahnestock. The job here is to inform the public on the discovery that has been made, and to celebrate that discovery. It is to create "the 'wonder' appeal" when talking about "'never before' achievements" of whatever was accomplished.

I think that when it comes to science writing it is important to remember to celebrate the success, as Fahnestock points out. It is important that we focus on the people that were a part of the achievement, and what the achievement can bring to the greater whole of humanity. What makes science writing interesting to the average person is what it can do for them or for society. The "why should I care" element is largely important here and I think that's really what Fahnestock's piece really empasizes. It seems to be the same things we've already covered again and again--the human element of science writing is all important.

Questions and Answers

So Doug asked us to do some question responses instead of reading responses and analyses. I'm all about it!

1.  How did you used to see, and how do you now see, the relationship between writing and following rules? Do you associate rules more with one kind of writing or another, or not really think much about rules at all, or think about rules in all your writing? (Again, try to give me, if you can, how you thought about this when you entered college, and how you think about it now, and if your thinking hasn't changed, that's fine, just say so.) 

I would have to say that upon entering college I thought that almost every type of writing had a certain structure it was supposed to be following. I thought that there were certain grammar and writing rules that dictated the way a student was/is expected to be writing. For years and years we are taught to write five paragraph essays that include an introduction, 3 body paragraphs that describe to the reader everything we want to say, and then a conclusion that sums it all up. "It is Molly and I . . ." they said. "Passive voice is wrong" they said. "Write for your audience," they said. Those are just some of the "rules" of writing that we are given as young writers. When in fact, the case is not so black and white. It isn't always "Molly and I . . ." sometimes, in fact, it actually is grammatically correct to say "Molly and me." Passive voice is not wrong, has it's place and function in writing and is necessary for a writer to emphasize certain parts of a sentence (thanks LING 238 for teaching me that my use of passive voice is purposeful and meaningful!)  Also, you don't always need to write for your audience, sometimes you need to write for you and then cater to your audience later.

Upon entering college and delving more deeply into my studies of writing, I have come to learn that the rules of writing are dictated more by personal style, professor style, and the genre that you are working in. I have found that in my writing in college I have been given more freedom to break the "rules" that had been imposed on me throughout the years (I mean just look at the idea of using blogs as writing assignments, I think my AP teachers would have a heart attack if they could see me using blogs to respond to readings!) I've also noticed that we college students are more highly encouraged to put ourselves and our own voice into our writing. It seems that even when doing technical writing, it is important that the writer's voice is still present even if they're bias should not be. That is something that I never felt encouraged to do in my high school years, unless it was a more creative writing sort of piece.

Now, I would say that I don't necessarily "think" about the rules of writing any sort of piece, I feel that I've simply developed a pretty strong understanding for how genres function and how to write within them without consciously thinking about how the rules of that genre dictate the writing.

2. What did you and do you think is the role of personal opinion in writing? Is there writing that should be more personal and other that shouldn't be? Is there writing where opinion isn't allowed? Is there writing that should be as purely objective as possible, and if so, can/should that writing also be personal?

I think that opinion has it's place in writing, even when it isn't supposed to. Even when we say we are writing an objective, un-biased piece of writing, our own thoughts and opinions will inevitably leak into the writing. There is no way that humans can be completely objective, and we cannot help but put bias into our writing even if it isn't on purpose.

Not only do opinions leak into our writing, but there are times and places in which opinions are necessary in writing. When we write memoir, editorials, and opinion pieces, obviously the author's thoughts and opinions are essential to the piece. Yet, there are also times and places in which opinions do not at all belong in writing. When reporting on the findings of a study or the outcomes of an event, it is important that personal opinion is held out of the writing as much as possible. 

I also find that even though some writing shouldn't have opinion in it, doesn't mean it can't be personal writing. If a writer is passionate about a topic, their voice is going to slip into the piece and make it feel more personal, even if it remains as objective as possible. 

3. Are there places or scenes of writing that you associate more with the personal and opinion-based writing, and other scenes you associate more with objective and impersonal writing? If so, what are differences in those scenes -- what are they associated with?

As with the previous question, I see more personal and opinion-based writing to be reserved for pieces of writing that function as personal and opinionated: memoirs, editorials, opinion articles. These are places in which the author's thoughts, opinions, and experiences should be prevalent in the writing. I see more "impersonal" writing as things that function as a source of information: manuals, research papers/articles, lab reports, news reports. These are places in which facts are to be presented and not opinions. Again, this isn't to say that these types of writing are totally devoid of human element, but rather they are typically places that I see as more impersonal pieces of writing.