Newton and the Journal Article

According to Sepper, Newton's letter to the Henry Oldenbourg is "the first great specimen" of the journal article, a style of writing used in the scientific community. Sepper praises the clarity of Newton's writing, adding that it needs hardly any commentary. However, Sepper also conjectures that the letter is not strictly factual and represents more of a "dramatic reconstruction" than a "literal account." For example, Newton presents his findings as the results of playful experiment, when he actually possessed sophisticated knowledge of prisms before conducting the experiments.

Perhaps this dramatic presentation allows Newton to communicate more effectively with his audience (although he also leaves out some principles that he considers too elementary to include), but I wonder if such writing is really appropriate for science. Specifically, when presenting an experiment, I think it might be important to adhere to the truth as much as possible. Galileo and other scientists have been guilty of similar transgressions, fudging results that sometimes are actually accurate, but sometimes not.

So what is the proper style for a piece of scientific writing?

Photos of Reflections

Dotted reflections on the glass panes of the lamp, some trees reflected in the lake, and finally, the Dome reflected (albeit imperfectly) in the lake.

Alhazen

I found Lindberg's comparison of Alhazen and Avicenna very interesting. Although Avicenna often has greater technical power, Lindberg (and apparently most of West) prefer Alhazen's text. According to Lindberg, "it had great persuasive power" (61) and "successfully integrated the anatomical, physical, and mathematical approaches to sight" (67). There is more to a scientific text than mere observation; as Lindberg explains, it must both refute past theories and defend a replacement. In addition, it must present these arguments persuasively. Lindberg makes the interesting point that sometimes the refutations themselves are incorrect, though they correctly guide one to the right theory. In other words, a misunderstanding or ignorance about a concept might help one to reject a false theory.

The Sandman

I really loved The Sandman; it reminded me of Italo Calvino's If on a winter's night a traveler. The Sandman isn't quite as blatantly meta-fictional, but it certainly contains some of the same nuances as Calvino's novel. For example, the power of words and ability or iniability to express oneself through language are frequent topics in The Sandman, leading the reader to consider the story itself and its succes or failure to communicate. Language, not just as a tool, but as an art, is also a topic of consideration. First, the narrator explictly tells us that "the poet can do no more than capture the strangeness of reality, like the dim reflection in a dull mirror" (99). What does this tell us about the truth contained in the story? Doesn't this also lend greater significance to the many layers of the story (much like If on a winter's night a traveler) - characters, letter-writers, narrator, author, reader, the book as an artifact - a complexity mirrored in the story itself by the divided personalities, false humans, and blurred barriers between dream/reality.

There is a lot going on this story, and so much to discuss. Aside from the meta-fiction aspects, I'm also interested in what it is saying about objective truth and how we can arrive at it (intuition vs. logic).

Bacon's New Atlantis

I wondered if The New Atlantis had a cover illustration like The New Organon. I don't know if this image went with the original publication, but I found this illustration. It's almost comic in its depiction of Bacon's utopia. Men dressed in Elizabethan collars and beards peer curiously through telescopes and speak through string telephones. I'm not sure what the winged figure represents (did the scholars also learn to fly?), but if he represents a religious figure, it is significant that for all their study, no one sees him. Indeed, every man in the picture is wholly caught up in his present occupation and the microcosm of the island. This is exactly the problem that arises with Bacon and the Renaissance/Enlightenment philosophers; while not denying the importance of religion, they set out on a course of action whose end is only earthly. Their cause is noble - they want to improve life for man, to ease his pain and hold off death - but is it noble in comparison to the quest to save souls?