Musings of the now
Getting kinda bored of disparaging my own degree because it doesn't live up to the objective standards of science. I don't hate science and maths, if I did I wouldn't have taken honours maths, chemistry and physics for the leaving, I wouldn't love neuroscience and I wouldn't kinda-shamefully-won't-really-admit-to-it like stats because it gives me the chance to use numbers and think about them in a way I kinda-shamefully-won't-really-admit-to-it miss from secondary school. What I dislike is the way science picks on the arts. Knock it off, science, or I'll tell your mother.
So, I studied a book this year. One of many. It's called The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. We only had to look at an extract from it but because I wanted to write about it in my exam I read all of it. Not that long, maybe 70 pages? Worth a look if you're interested. It was written at the end of the '70s and one of the ideas raised by the author is the legitimation of knowledge. Basically, deciding if something is just/unjust, efficient/inefficient or, for my purposes here, right/wrong. He divides knowledge into two main kinds, scientific and narrative knowledge. I'm going to maul his ideas a bit and divide knowledge into the objective and the subjective, 'cause I'm awkward like that. So, objective knowledge has specific standards by which it can say whether something is right or wrong, things like the sum of the numbers being equal on each side of the equation. That malarkey. Subjective knowledge legitimates itself in a different way. And each branch of subjective knowledge doesn't give a shit how other branches of itself and branches of objective knowledge legitimate themselves. Shake a baby and if it cries, you're right, makes no difference to me. Whatever gives you your kicks, man. Objective knowledge kinda wants everyone to play by its rules. Judged by the yardstick of science, as my pal Lyotard might say.
There are these stereotypical images of science and subjects like literature or philosophy. The sciences progress forward in a fantastic onward march, discovering new things and actually making a difference. Objective truth allows science to do that. The arts just chase their own tails because no-one can be 'right' and people get caught in cyclical arguments. I will happily sound the trumpet for science's march. Look at what it's done for us in the past two centuries alone! Major fucking wow. You know my psychology tutor? No, you don't, but I'll tell you about her anyway. She studied neuroscience in Hong Kong and is currently doing a phD in Trinners. She's part of a group that are working on treatments for Alzheimer's and ways in which to slow down or halt progession of the disease. Recently a group from Trinity neuroscience, which I believe she is part of, found a means of detecting the disease before the patient shows signs of having Alzheimer's. My dad has done lots of work on absorption spectroscopy and is apparently well-respected by everyone outside his own home. I wouldn't believe him, though. Anyway, Wen and my dad haven't discovered anything super by the yardstick of the subjective human condition of amazement, but their work is part of the swirling mass of SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, all these little discoveries that intersect and interact at various nodes and reproduce to create ANOTHER SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY and help us in understanding our world. On an objective level.
There's no such thing as objectivity, though. Psychologists, and I presume all other scientists, know that because humans can only work in the phenomenal and not the noumenal world, everything we touch turns to subjectivity. 'Objective measures' don't exist, because we interpret our data in a subjective way. The universe doesn't work in numbers, for example, we just use numerical values to explain it. Just like what I said in my exam today, genes don't speak the English language so attempting to tie traits defined by trait theory, which is influenced by language and linguistic meaning, to specific genes or groups of genes (quantitative trait loci, ooh yeah, I know my terminology) is a silly endeavor. I didn't call it silly in the exam though. The researchers who conducted those studies are far, far less silly than me. There's an Einstein quote I really like which sums up what I'm saying here for those of you who are sick of my blathering. He said "The 'real' is in no way immediately given to us. Given to us is merely the data of our consciousness." Thanks, Einstein.
To return to why I'm sick of disparaging the study of English literature and psychology. Psychology is a bit of an odd case. Its usefulness is not in question. Understanding the human subject, its motivations and other thought processes, the brain-behaviour link and multitudes of other things? Yes please. The accusation levelled at it is that it's 'not real science'. No, it's not. Yet. I'm very proud of psychology, I'm proud to be studying it and I will be more proud when I (possibly maybe) enter into a career in the field. One of the reasons I am so proud about it is because psychology is trying to become a science. It is using experimental methods and trying to find the methodology that best suits a field with so elusive a subject. It doesn't just speculate, it investigates. One could say that it's a massive surrender monkey gay for the phallic yardstick of science. Or one could say, that the type of understanding sought in psychology is best constructed as scientific, so it's only natural that psychology is constantly building itself up, working on its validity, checking out biology's massive pecs and physics's bulging biceps, and always returning to that yardstick to see if it qualifies yet. Now? No. How about now? Not quite. Ever? Not any time soon anyway. But I'd like to be one of the people who help make psychology worthy of its classification as a social/human science.
English. Yeah, I could learn that off google, I suppose. I don't need to be in lectures listening, or in tutorials discussing, I could do that all online. But you know, if I get the option of a degree at the end, I'm going to choose that. Chemistry? You study that? Sure you could just study the stuff online. Astrophysics? What are you doing in college? Go home, you've got google scholar there, you don't need much else. Theoretically, with all of the data banks (another delightfully quaint yet comprehensive term of Lyotard's) available to us in this AGE OF THE INTERNET, you could teach yourself anything online, once you have access to google scholar or WOS or JSTOR or whatever. A number of issues with this, however. Firstly, who the feck has the motivation to do all of that work by themselves, when they could have help and feedback and free resources and a degree at the end? Secondly, while it might be easy for an English student to get access to books and secondary texts online, where are they going to get their feedback? How are they going to know how their development of their opinions and their ability to convey those opinions measure up to the standards set by others (albeit only vaguely objective standards)? It might be hard for a chemistry student to get access to equipment with only a laptop in front of them, but getting feedback on results would be an awful lot easier, seeing as there's an objective 'right' and 'wrong' and if you're wrong the computer calculator will say so. Next person to tell me I don't need to be in college to be studying English literature gets a year's worth of diatribes (if they're genuine about it, to ward off sarcastic comments, the energy needed for diatribes is a precious resource, you know).
So what use is English? How can I contribute to society and to knowledge and understanding and all that science contributes to? Well, literature unabashedly resides in the phenomenal world. It doesn't like science's yardstick, it actually swings the other way, it's sorry, it knows this is embarassing for the two of us, but at least now you know. People need to understand that knowing objective rights and wrongs is not the only thing of importance. So is enjoying life and literature! So is letting your self, that elusive and expansive thing made of conscious and unconscious, hard-wiring and learning, opinions and so many other bits and pieces and knicks and knacks, be drawn out by words on a page, by letting those words influence you, or maybe talk to parts of you that have already been influenced by your parents' opinions, or historical occurences, or what Einstein once said. I mean, there are other skills that studying literature gives a person, such as the ability to read subtext, or the use of an expanded vocabulary, or efficient ways to get your opinion across (I haven't gotten the hang of this one quite yet), or so many other things any English faculty homepage will tell you. I mean, sure, I could find ways to get those skills without working towards a minor in English. But I like the fact that they're tied up together in a degree programme and I'm hardly going to sacrifice getting a degree which involves studying what I love wholeheartedly just because it's not as 'useful' as law is from the get-go. English students become journalists, diplomats, teachers, scholars, politicians, all of which are useful jobs. Sure, you can study journalism or political science at undergrad level, but studying English beforehand gives you a bit of an edge, a bit of time to think. How will it be useful to me as a psychologist? Writing skills for reports. Philosophical understanding of meaning and signification if I choose to research language. Broad knowledge of literature to use anecdotally in lectures and reports in order to maintain interest and create analogies that are easy to understand. Other stuff, I'm sure; I'll let you know if and when I get there.
So science, you can put your yardstick away. I know it comes in handy in some situations, but no-one wants it swinging around in their faces 24/7. You gotta learn when to whip it out and when to put it away, man, or you're going to land yourself in trouble.
If you actually read all that, argue with me, tell me if I changed your mind, just interact, respond, challenge!
So, I studied a book this year. One of many. It's called The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. We only had to look at an extract from it but because I wanted to write about it in my exam I read all of it. Not that long, maybe 70 pages? Worth a look if you're interested. It was written at the end of the '70s and one of the ideas raised by the author is the legitimation of knowledge. Basically, deciding if something is just/unjust, efficient/inefficient or, for my purposes here, right/wrong. He divides knowledge into two main kinds, scientific and narrative knowledge. I'm going to maul his ideas a bit and divide knowledge into the objective and the subjective, 'cause I'm awkward like that. So, objective knowledge has specific standards by which it can say whether something is right or wrong, things like the sum of the numbers being equal on each side of the equation. That malarkey. Subjective knowledge legitimates itself in a different way. And each branch of subjective knowledge doesn't give a shit how other branches of itself and branches of objective knowledge legitimate themselves. Shake a baby and if it cries, you're right, makes no difference to me. Whatever gives you your kicks, man. Objective knowledge kinda wants everyone to play by its rules. Judged by the yardstick of science, as my pal Lyotard might say.
There are these stereotypical images of science and subjects like literature or philosophy. The sciences progress forward in a fantastic onward march, discovering new things and actually making a difference. Objective truth allows science to do that. The arts just chase their own tails because no-one can be 'right' and people get caught in cyclical arguments. I will happily sound the trumpet for science's march. Look at what it's done for us in the past two centuries alone! Major fucking wow. You know my psychology tutor? No, you don't, but I'll tell you about her anyway. She studied neuroscience in Hong Kong and is currently doing a phD in Trinners. She's part of a group that are working on treatments for Alzheimer's and ways in which to slow down or halt progession of the disease. Recently a group from Trinity neuroscience, which I believe she is part of, found a means of detecting the disease before the patient shows signs of having Alzheimer's. My dad has done lots of work on absorption spectroscopy and is apparently well-respected by everyone outside his own home. I wouldn't believe him, though. Anyway, Wen and my dad haven't discovered anything super by the yardstick of the subjective human condition of amazement, but their work is part of the swirling mass of SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY, all these little discoveries that intersect and interact at various nodes and reproduce to create ANOTHER SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY and help us in understanding our world. On an objective level.
There's no such thing as objectivity, though. Psychologists, and I presume all other scientists, know that because humans can only work in the phenomenal and not the noumenal world, everything we touch turns to subjectivity. 'Objective measures' don't exist, because we interpret our data in a subjective way. The universe doesn't work in numbers, for example, we just use numerical values to explain it. Just like what I said in my exam today, genes don't speak the English language so attempting to tie traits defined by trait theory, which is influenced by language and linguistic meaning, to specific genes or groups of genes (quantitative trait loci, ooh yeah, I know my terminology) is a silly endeavor. I didn't call it silly in the exam though. The researchers who conducted those studies are far, far less silly than me. There's an Einstein quote I really like which sums up what I'm saying here for those of you who are sick of my blathering. He said "The 'real' is in no way immediately given to us. Given to us is merely the data of our consciousness." Thanks, Einstein.
To return to why I'm sick of disparaging the study of English literature and psychology. Psychology is a bit of an odd case. Its usefulness is not in question. Understanding the human subject, its motivations and other thought processes, the brain-behaviour link and multitudes of other things? Yes please. The accusation levelled at it is that it's 'not real science'. No, it's not. Yet. I'm very proud of psychology, I'm proud to be studying it and I will be more proud when I (possibly maybe) enter into a career in the field. One of the reasons I am so proud about it is because psychology is trying to become a science. It is using experimental methods and trying to find the methodology that best suits a field with so elusive a subject. It doesn't just speculate, it investigates. One could say that it's a massive surrender monkey gay for the phallic yardstick of science. Or one could say, that the type of understanding sought in psychology is best constructed as scientific, so it's only natural that psychology is constantly building itself up, working on its validity, checking out biology's massive pecs and physics's bulging biceps, and always returning to that yardstick to see if it qualifies yet. Now? No. How about now? Not quite. Ever? Not any time soon anyway. But I'd like to be one of the people who help make psychology worthy of its classification as a social/human science.
English. Yeah, I could learn that off google, I suppose. I don't need to be in lectures listening, or in tutorials discussing, I could do that all online. But you know, if I get the option of a degree at the end, I'm going to choose that. Chemistry? You study that? Sure you could just study the stuff online. Astrophysics? What are you doing in college? Go home, you've got google scholar there, you don't need much else. Theoretically, with all of the data banks (another delightfully quaint yet comprehensive term of Lyotard's) available to us in this AGE OF THE INTERNET, you could teach yourself anything online, once you have access to google scholar or WOS or JSTOR or whatever. A number of issues with this, however. Firstly, who the feck has the motivation to do all of that work by themselves, when they could have help and feedback and free resources and a degree at the end? Secondly, while it might be easy for an English student to get access to books and secondary texts online, where are they going to get their feedback? How are they going to know how their development of their opinions and their ability to convey those opinions measure up to the standards set by others (albeit only vaguely objective standards)? It might be hard for a chemistry student to get access to equipment with only a laptop in front of them, but getting feedback on results would be an awful lot easier, seeing as there's an objective 'right' and 'wrong' and if you're wrong the computer calculator will say so. Next person to tell me I don't need to be in college to be studying English literature gets a year's worth of diatribes (if they're genuine about it, to ward off sarcastic comments, the energy needed for diatribes is a precious resource, you know).
So what use is English? How can I contribute to society and to knowledge and understanding and all that science contributes to? Well, literature unabashedly resides in the phenomenal world. It doesn't like science's yardstick, it actually swings the other way, it's sorry, it knows this is embarassing for the two of us, but at least now you know. People need to understand that knowing objective rights and wrongs is not the only thing of importance. So is enjoying life and literature! So is letting your self, that elusive and expansive thing made of conscious and unconscious, hard-wiring and learning, opinions and so many other bits and pieces and knicks and knacks, be drawn out by words on a page, by letting those words influence you, or maybe talk to parts of you that have already been influenced by your parents' opinions, or historical occurences, or what Einstein once said. I mean, there are other skills that studying literature gives a person, such as the ability to read subtext, or the use of an expanded vocabulary, or efficient ways to get your opinion across (I haven't gotten the hang of this one quite yet), or so many other things any English faculty homepage will tell you. I mean, sure, I could find ways to get those skills without working towards a minor in English. But I like the fact that they're tied up together in a degree programme and I'm hardly going to sacrifice getting a degree which involves studying what I love wholeheartedly just because it's not as 'useful' as law is from the get-go. English students become journalists, diplomats, teachers, scholars, politicians, all of which are useful jobs. Sure, you can study journalism or political science at undergrad level, but studying English beforehand gives you a bit of an edge, a bit of time to think. How will it be useful to me as a psychologist? Writing skills for reports. Philosophical understanding of meaning and signification if I choose to research language. Broad knowledge of literature to use anecdotally in lectures and reports in order to maintain interest and create analogies that are easy to understand. Other stuff, I'm sure; I'll let you know if and when I get there.
So science, you can put your yardstick away. I know it comes in handy in some situations, but no-one wants it swinging around in their faces 24/7. You gotta learn when to whip it out and when to put it away, man, or you're going to land yourself in trouble.
If you actually read all that, argue with me, tell me if I changed your mind, just interact, respond, challenge!