Science and Literature (was Re: IJ footnote)

[Jeffrey Reid]

I hope people don't find my continuation of this thread too off-topic...

On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Andrew Dinn wrote:
> Jeffrey Reid writes:
> > > > There is at least one other math error in the footnotes: Cantor's
> > > > Diagonal Proof doesn't mean that between any two objects you can put
> > > > an infinity of other objects.
> > It does if those objects are numbers on the real line...
> Sorry, but I have to disagree with both of you.
> [much math stuff removed]
>
I'm confused.  Are you claiming that Cantor's diagonal proof DOES NOT show
that between any two reals there are an infinite number of other reals?
Because that is all I am saying.  I make no assertions about the further
scope of the proof or DFW's understanding/presentation of it.

> > Actually, I think this is a general problem when writing eloquently
> > about math and the hard sciences.  Can any generalizations or
> > [much of my rant removed]
> I agree that maths and much of science are exceptionally precise
> disciplines. But I don't think scientists are any more anal than most
> people about popularisation of their discipline. Imagine how
> intolerant lit types would be of a sit-com based on lit-crit - endless
> wisecracks and arguments about what Derrida actually said (and what he
> actually meant?).
>
There is always some resistance to the popularization and stereotyping of
one's discipline, but this isn't what I'm talking about.  We never even
meet a scientist is TRP's _Entropy_ yet he manages to speak eloquently
about what is at the root of the concept and how it can be applied to
everyday life (even though his grasp of the actual science is admittedlty
thin).  This is where most scientists get really uncomfortable, when you
take their precise things which can only accurately be applied in specific
circumstances and make art with the concepts involved.

> I was reading today a review of a new book, `The Physics of Star Trek'
> which shows how tolerant most scientists are of some utterly
> ridiculous things which appear in the shows, things which clearly are
> nonsense - e.g. faster than light travel. These are just accepted as
> cliches of the genre. What this reveals to me is that most scientists,
> like most people, leave their critical faculties at home when fed
> comforting, familiar pap and engage them when fed stuff which, other
> than the bits which touch their discipline, goes way over their
> heads. How else do you account for the success of all those sword and
> sorcery books?
>
You are right, scientists do readily accept pretty far fetched things in
pop art, but only when they aren't central to the ideas being presented.
Star Trek is not about science.  It is a futuristic soap opera.  They
never speak eloquently about the beauty of Lagrangian mechanics, or the
symmetries of scale invariant structures.  All they do is use a lot of
words (and images) that scientists use to generate plot devices for the
soap opera.  My point speaks to the real interpretation of real science in
a literary/artistic way (like TRP often does with entropy theory, or
Ducasse does with pure mathematics in _Maldoror_).  This is a completely
different phenomenon then scientists accepting the inherent assumptions
(faster then light travel, magical powers, etc.) in the sci-fi and fantasy
canons.

Jeff

---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey G Reid       			jgreid at u.washington.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------
"O holy mathematics, may I for the rest of my days be consoled
 by perpetual intercourse with you, consoled for the wickedness
 of man and the injustice of the Almighty!"  -- Isidore Ducasse