Monday, February 8, 2010
Questions to ponder from friday
Today, we have discussed that the scientific writing style of the first half of the eighteenth century was based on conquering nature whereas the latter half of the century was based on the naturalistic point of view, where the authors seem to describe more about the nature itself than their hardships of their trips. Please write which writing style is subjective AND why, OR which one is not subjective AND why. It would not be a bad idea to base your reasons from the text we had to read yesterday, not that it is required.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I feel like the writing style of the first half of the 18th century was much more subjective than that of the second half. This is most likely due to the fact that the technology of that time period was not as advanced as it is now. Thus, the scientists of that time period had no other choice than to use their opinions and ideas to quantify their findings. Also, data was not as standardized as it is now and measurements differed from place to place. Therefore, scientists did not have any way of quantifying their data in a form that was similar to other scientists. Consequently, their data was largely based on opionions and their own measurements. Just as many cooks use a "pinch" or "dash" of salt, scientists of that time period would say, for example, a specimen was "half an arm's length" or some such standard. This is why, in my opion, the writings from the first half of the 18th century were more subjective.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part both of them can be viewed as subjective or objective. The first scenario is objective in that the explorers/scientists were concerned with the materialistic winnings of science. They were in it for the publicity, the hype and the prowess. However it can also be seen as subjective. While they did gain the political stamina, they also had to appreciate what they were doing and observe the beauty and savagery of the nature they were conquering. They had to establish why this nature was so pure and fantastical and appealing to the public. On the other hand the later half of the 18th century posed a new outlook on what science was. Science was not so much about the amazing adventures but what they found on these amazing discoveries. This was more about quantifying what they found on their journey's rather than the trip along the way. However this view of science can also be viewed as subjective as the scientists had to explain their treasures to the public.
ReplyDeleteBut what is science really about? subjectivity or Objectivity? Realistically, when it comes down to it, it is about the winnings and the gains made toward progress. Is it important for us to notice the subjectivity of science?