literature and science

[craigbre at IMAP2.ASU.EDU]

At the risk of making my first post a "me too" of the opinion offered by 
Bonnie Surfus, I must say that the debate between Jporter and Andrew Dinn 
about whether literature follows science or vice versa is rather a 
poultry/ova argument.  As Ms. Surfus points out and Katherine Hayles has 
argued, the two are bound together more closely than we normally admit, 
both taking part in an immensely complex cultural conversation (not a 
dialog because such would imply a binary opposition between science and 
art which ignores other voices).  Though we may divide our universities 
into sciences and humanities, our society is a heterogeneous mix, with 
ideas from multiple sources available and employed.  There are automobile 
commercials which sell cars using chaos theory (Honda, if I remember 
correctly).  These ideas don't "belong" to science or art.  They are 
employed by them.  To think of cultural progress as a footrace between 
science and art, to argue that one "leads" the other, misses the point.  
If anything it is more of a three-legged race, with art and science 
shackled together, sometimes out of step, sometimes in synch, and with a 
lot of other belief systems in the competition.
    As for Mr. Dinn's position that most postmodern authors are "horribly 
ignorant of science and hence in no position to provide a context for the 
assessment of science's value," it is precisely this kind of 
compartmentalization of knowledge, the proprietary notion that only one 
who can expound upon polypeptides and covalent bonds can presume to 
critique science, that reinforces the sort of dangerous hierarchy that 
instills a fear of science.  One can hardly live in this century without 
having a wealth of experience upon which to draw conclusions about the 
problems inherent in a search for scientific "truth."  I don't need to be 
able to calculate its trajectory to know that a V-2 is dangerous. (Had to 
get a Pynchon reference in there for validation.)
    And, though I would never argue, as does Jporter, that science owes 
its imagination to literature, neither would I scoff, as does Mr. Dinn, 
at the notion that ICBMs, automobiles, nuclear reactors, gene therapy, 
antibiotics and the internet have their precursors in literature.  I 
quick reading of Verne, Welles, and any number of speculative fiction 
writers reveals an amazing predictive track record.  In fact one can 
easily argue that the shape of the internet even as it develops before 
our eyes, is more influenced by the works of science fiction writers than 
scientists.
    Finally(thankfully), I am a bit disappointed that a list of readers 
so interested in Pynchon slips so easily into traditional binary 
oppositions, and to apparently retain such vehement emotional ties to 
them, as to refer to another's post as a "ridiculous piece of bullshit."
    Sorry about the length of this ridiculous piece of bullshit.