On the Humanist and Scientist

I was tempted to write one of those academic questions today, like something from a writing seminar. But I won’t. I mean, I will, but not in the academic way (I hope).

It seems that when I read science (was reading “The Canon” this morning, which started me on these thoughts), I love paradoxes - incongruities between seeming facts. I try to resolve the dilemma with some sort of explanation - it’s a very rational kind of exercise. When I read literature/humanities, I love similarities - relations between the thoughts and myself or others I know.  I try to understand human nature - it’s a very personal exercise that uses intuition and feelings. 

I have no idea where I’m going with this. Just that, I suppose I’ve also been thinking about the relationship between science and the humanities. To me, science falls in the realm of the thinkers, rationalists. Humanities more so under the feelers, compassion-ists. That, at least, seems to be how I connect with them.

So, when I considered why both sides - the scientists and the humanists (as in humanities-ists) - despair over their decline, my friend brought up a good point: “there are plenty of fields that aren't either humanities or science, and maybe those fields are growing.”

And the more I thought, the more I loved that idea.

You see, I’ve recently come under the confusion about whether it is better to spend your time strengthening your strengths (develop your passion!) or your weaknesses (be well-balanced!). This, for me, includes trying to be a little more of the person I’m not used to being (such as writing to you so openly). This also means toning down my more intuitive, feeling side, and strengthening my sensing, thinking side. So why do I love the idea of the growth of other fields? 

Because I think fields that aren't “either humanities or science” are a mix of the two. Perhaps these fields include political science, sociology, anthropology. And, this notion gives me strength to further believe that in today’s society, it is, in fact, good to be well-rounded (though seemingly not so useful in college admissions to top universities…) - not just academically, but personally (be logical vs be empathetic) as well, which gives me further strength in this journey to, so to say, round myself out a little better.

I think our ideal is not just the humanists, or scientist, nor just the thinker, or feeler, but the ideal lies in the middle (like so many things…). And this from another brilliant friend makes the point well (exerpt below): http://chronicle.com/article/The-Humanities-in-Dubious/140047/. So, maybe I’m not sure where I’m going, but I’m keeping my ears open.

It’s by listening, as humanists do best, to stories, and seeing what the narratives can teach us. Open your ears and—we promise you—you’ll hear stories that don’t resemble what you read in the media.
Have you heard about the professor of neurology who, as a student, learned to do research by writing a prize-winning senior thesis in history on the death of Captain Cook? No, of course you haven’t. But he exists, too, and so do thousands more.

Hello again! (Seeing in the Dark)

It's good to see you again (in the dark), and sorry for the hiatus. My school changed google platforms and this google account was no longer very accessible, so I started a new blog. Now that I'm out of school, I think it's high time to transfer blog posts, and say hello again. Hello! Stay tuned for a plethora of transferred posts, starting below with Radiolab, of course!

Radiolab Podcast: Seeing in the Dark

John and Zoltan are both blind, but they deal with the world in completely different ways -- one paints vivid pictures in his mind, while the other refuses to picture anything at all. In this short, they argue about the truth of a world they can't see.

"While John finds truth in darkness, Zoltan sees an emotional void. And as they argue, they reveal some very powerful truths about how we connect to one another."

How do we connect to each other? In different ways, and that makes us richer. Take a listen (20 min or so), this is beautiful. 

Escher, Chopin, and String Theory

A reflection on "String Theory and Little Bangs" with Prof. Gubser

In a dinner discussion with the Princeton society, "Music in Mind," Princeton Physics professor, Steven Gubser, shared with a group of around 45 students his research in using string theory to describe collisions of heavy ions. Along the way, he made some creative relations to art and music. I'd like to share them here:

1) The vibrational modes of a superstring are like the overtones of a piano string, allowing blends of overtones to create a note. One difference, however, is that the vibrational modes of a superstring are much less constrained than the possible overtones of a piano string's. 

2) Professor Gubser explains how a hyperbolic geometry, AdS5, describes the geometry of D3-branes in a similar manner as an Escher artwork, "Angels and Demons:"

In Escher's artwork, the big angels are the same shape as the little angels, making the elements conformal.  It is a self within a self. For example, the large angels and small angels may be distorted from each other, but in the end, they are still angels. The theory of real-world gluons and quarks is likewise approximately conformal.

3) Finally, in the Q and A session, Professor Gubser left us with a general statement about a similar type of thinking within musicians and physicists. That is, namely, how to reconcile conflicting or seemingly opposing items into a fluid whole. He gives the example of Chopin, who smoothly meshed a 3 against 4 right hand vs left hand rhythm in his famous "Fantasie-Impromptu:" 

Lisewise, Professor Gubser argues that string theorists consistently must reconcile experimental data with theory, to see how the two could become consistent even in the face of seemingly inconsistent data.

Talk Description:

"String theory and little bangs"with Professor Steven Gubser, Princeton Physics departmenton Monday, September 24, 6-7 pm at the Mathey Firestone Society Room 

String theory is an attempt to describe all of fundamental physics starting from microscopic, vibrating strings.  In recent years there have been some remarkable successes in using stringtheory to describe collisions of heavy ions, which recreate the conditions present in the universe about a microsecond after the big bang.  I'll summarize these developments, introducing some of the personalities involved and using analogies to music and art where I can. String theory has been called the "theory of everything." It seeks to describe all the fundamental forces of nature. It encompasses gravity and quantum mechanics in one unifying theory. But it is unproven and fraught with controversy. 

Professor Steven Gubser is professor of physics at Princeton University (you may know him as your PHY 102 professor). His research focuses on theoretical particle physics, especially string theory, and the AdS/CFT correspondence. He is a widely cited scholar in these and other related areas. He is the author of "The Little Book of String Theory," which offers a short, accessible, and entertaining introduction to one of the most talked-about areas of physics today.   

Webpages: http://www.princeton.edu/physics/people/display_person.xml?netid=ssgubser&display=faculty, http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~ssgubser/

Artistic Synthesis and Synthetic Art

There’s hardly a thing that a man can name
Of use or beauty in life’s small game
But you can extract in alembic or jar
From the "physical basis" of black coal-tar-
Oil and ointment, and wax and wine,
And the lovely colors called aniline;
You can make anything from a salve to a star,
If you only know how, from black coal-tar.
-Punch

For the creators out there--artists and musicians, scientists, humanists, engineers, I recommend this article: In Praise of Synthesis by Roald Hoffman.

As you open the article and start to groan because you see esoteric chemical molecules, hang in there and keep reading, and you'll find the hallmarks that link scientists and artists, similar things that President Shirley Tilghman mentioned in her Art of Science talk. Roald Hoffman was a recipient of the 1981 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and these are his words:

Chemical synthesis not only shares some of the aesthetic criteria of art; I think it is art. At the same time, it is logic. 

Consider the kind of art and creation that happens in making cubane:

The details of how it happens may be enigmatic, but surely it is obvious that a great process--part by design, part by chance, planned and experimented--occurs to create a elegant product. I agree, this is art. This is also logic. Wherein logic is art in this case, I also think, and I'm sure Escher would agree, that art is logic. Witness a Escher tessellation:

The mix of planning, experimentation, part by chance and part by design aspects of chemical synthesis are no doubt manifested in this beautiful, clever work of art--as in the beautiful, clever synthesis of cubane.

Beautiful logic (I mean art), isn't it?