more on entropy

[Hartwin Alfred Gebhardt]

Bonnie Surfus writes:

> This line on "sloppy science" never ceases to amaze/confound/confuse me.  
> For Pynchon's deployment of science in his work seems well-conceived, to 
> me.  

I agree, especially when it comes to GR.


>       He does not overwhelm.  Rather, in deference to an audience most 
> likely knowledgeable of the principles he "uses" only in the most 
> rudimentary ways, he speaks as a human voice calling up what 
> oversimplified, overgeneralized versions at his disposal. 

I don't think he uses "oversimplified, overgeneralized" science to 
make life easy for his lazy readers. I think he _criticizes_ the use 
of the "sloppy science" which he evokes - he conjures up some Pavlovian 
excess, for instance, in order to show how truly dangerous the misuse 
or misapplication of science can be.

>                           Isn't this how 
> we "use" science?  Laypeople?  

Unfortunately yes. Even scientists themselves often "use" it 
sloppily. Not while they are doing science, of course, but when they 
try to use it, shall we say, philosophically. Science is, one could 
say, an ever expanding body of (practical) knowledge. The only thing 
really constant about it is the strict adherence to scientific 
methodology. That also means that scientific knowledge is very 
strictly defined - it only _exists_ (as knowledge) within a strictly 
defined context. As soon as that context is 'opened', it becomes mere 
gobbledegook.
An example (a little simplified, but not much:) Let's say I have a theory, 
and have devised an experiment to support that theory. I share that 
information with others in the field, who then repeat the experiment. 
If the results are the same, I may end up applying my newly gained 
knowledge and build a microwave oven. Science can tell us how that 
microwave works, what it does to a juicy rump steak, and even, by 
cross-referencing with nutritional science, whether any important 
nutritional elements are destroyed in the process or not. Science can 
_not_ tell us whether or not it is morally correct to eat meat in the first 
place. If somebody uses the science involved in the construction of 
the microwave to tell us that it is indeed right and proper to eat 
meat, then that person is guilty of misusing science, and we better start 
looking for the Cattle-ranchers Information Association lurking in 
the background. This may be a paranoid reaction, but it is an utterly 
appropriate form of paranoia. It is also, I believe, TRP's type of 
paranoia.
The use of entropy _as explanation_ for cultural degeneration, or loss 
of species diversity, or a general sense of gloom about life, the 
universe and everything, is precisely such a misuse. It is also a 
copout. (I have to repeat that IMO TRP does _not_ do this at all - 
rather the opposite.)

>                            And does it make our talk any less 
> provocative and informed?  I think not.  I have students who know 
> something of the Second Law of Thermodynamics speaking of it in everyday 
> conversation;  they have to make themselves understood and do so.  With 
> very much the same kind of limited treatment.  And they make sense.  And 
> we comprehend. 

But what is it we comprehend? The concept of entropy? Or some other 
message hidden as a subtext within? I have no problem with people who 
wish to express the opinion that our post-Enlightenment culture is 
destructive, or in decline, or whatever. Neither is it a problem to 
use all kinds of science-derived metaphors. But pointing triumphantly 
at what is perceived to be the new ultimate authority, the god 
science, and shouting "There, you see? THAT PROVES IT!!!" is totally 
unaccceptable. And sloppy. And lazy. And extremely unscientific. And 
downright dishonest - although ignorance is a legitimate defence 
these days, I suppose.

>                   Then there's the concept of science itself as socially 
> embedded, pointing a finger at us and laughing at our unwillingness to 
> consider it as anything but geeks in a vacuum, one of "Two Worlds," etc.  
> I appreciate that Pynchon takes complex concepts and uses them 
> reasonably, intelligently, and in ways that enrich his stories by merging 
> "Two Worlds" (as is the case . . .)

Yes, I agree. There is only one world. It's not all TRP does, though, 
and by no means the most important thing he does. It also pertains 
primarily to his technique, his method, not his message. And I 
think he does have a message, his work has 'content' in a pretty 
old-fashioned sense of the word.

hg
hag at iafrica.com