Poetry and science enjoy equal success in expanding human knowledge Essay Example for Free

Poetry and science enjoy equal success in expanding human knowledge Essay Before answering whether both poetry and science enjoy equal success in expanding human knowledge, one must first understand what poetry and science are and what they do. Poetry is an artists way of abstractly conveying his or her ideas through writing so as to stimulate the emotional side of the readers. Science on the other hand, is an objective way of clearly stating facts so as to stimulate the formal or fact craving side of the readers. Poetry presents an object in order to convey a particular message or feeling, whilst science merely presents an object objectively and describes how it is, clearly, in every way possible. Therefore, it is clear that the purpose of these two approaches is quite different. Furthermore, the ways of knowing in poetry and science are somewhat different. Poetrys ways of knowing are mainly emotion and language, while sciences are mainly language and reason. However, although they have language in common, both of them utilize language in different ways and for different purposes. As is obvious from above, both approaches aim to expand two completely different parts of human knowledge. Poetry aims to expand the aesthetic while science the scientific. Therefore, they cannot be assessed on their ability to expand human knowledge based on the same criteria but rather, they should both be assessed based on individual criteria in their own specific areas of knowledge and then compared after being assessed. Assessing them based on the same criteria would much be like comparing a desert with a main course, which would be wrong since they both have different purposes and, although the dessert may not be good at achieving the purpose of the main dish, it could well be excellent at achieving the purposes of a dessert. Since poetry tries to touch the readers emotional side aesthetically it must be scrutinized as an art. The purpose of art is to aesthetically touch an emotion which all people supposedly have. Through techniques specific to each art, good artists are able to do this, and this in itself is an expansion of human knowledge in that it causes people to be aware of their emotions. Humans have to turn to poetry to interpret life for us, to console us, to sustain us. (Matthew Arnold, The Study of Poetry) The purpose of Shakespeares Macbeth is not to scientifically understand how ambition can conquer one, nor is it meant to be a historical recount of the real Macbeth. It is a poetic story which is written so as people can empathize with the main characters and view their own life in terms of conquering their faults and sustaining their good. Another purpose of poetry is to represent human nature. This can clearly be seen through any of Roberts Frosts poems such as Out, Out which explains, better than any scientific paper ever could, the ability of a child to care so much about his desire to work and help society, and the lack of care his family experiences when he dies. Poetry presents human characteristics, the human thought, the human inner self, all compact into one verse and it is so powerful because when read, one immediately connects with it, and it touches each persons emotions in a way. Also, it so vividly depicts the nature of humans that it is a powerful tool through which people can express themselves, and in which people can relate to. It expands our knowledge of human nature and the way humans behave and the power of emotions and their effect on us. In Shakespeares Macbeth when Lady Macbeth asks the evil spirits to unsex me [Lady Macbeth] here one feels the evil powers of ambition and its ability to overtake ones sane and rational thought. On the other hand sciences purpose is to clearly depict a situation or object. Science, in no way, should aim to touch the readers emotional side, but rather touch the readers rationality. Although some may argue that science does touch a readers side, it is not the main purpose of the writing, and is rather an effect of extreme love towards and passion for the subject. A scientific argument should not be ambiguous or differ from reader to reader, unlike poetry. There is no way for a scientific argument to be true to some people and false to others, for in science there is an absolute truth which the scientists are trying to attain. Although many may argue that poets are also aiming to achieve this absolute truth, it must be noted that each persons emotions are different and therefore there is no way to absolutely describe the way people think, react or behave. Biology, chemistry and physics have set laws and truths which, regardless of who or where you are, will be true. If the purp ose of poetry is, as we said, to depict human nature, then the purpose of science is to understand nature itself and how it works. When writing a piece the author must create a balance between ambiguity and precision and the language of a piece is directly dependant on the purpose of the piece. Poetry and science are completely opposite in the way that they try to balance ambiguity and precision. In poetry the ability to ambiguously use words is good since it allows one to think abstractly and allows different readers, with different mindsets, to interpret the piece in different ways. Therefore, in the case of poetry language, as a way of knowing, is created to be ambiguous so as to contribute to the knowledge and effect of the piece. On the other hand, in science ambiguity greatly impedes a work. It is not acceptable for a law or theory in science to be indirect and not addressing one specific point clearly.. Otherwise the law becomes obsolete, since if it is not understandable it has no purpose. There is no space in science for different interpretations of a law; the law has one purpose that it achieves and that purpose is set. It is not different for different people, or different nations, or different cultures. In the sense of multiple meanings, contrary to poetrys double entendres, scienctific writing cannot have any; the one meaning the author desires to portray must be directly stated so as to disallow ambiguity and interpretation. For example, water being comprised of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom is true independent if one is in the United States, Russia, or Australia. Also, it is true independent of ones age, race, background, nationality, religion, or any other factor which may change from person to person. However, poetry is quite the opposite. Poetry should be, and is, interpreted differently by different people. The meaning or truth behind poetry is fully dependant on all the factors listed above. An old person may have a completely different understanding of words in poems such as George Herberts The Pulley the double meaning of the word rest which can either mean the remainder or it can mean peace. The great difference between these two interpretations leaves the reader with the final choice to interpret the poem the way he/she wants and this is the intent of the poet. However, in science it is the intent of the scientist to clearly illustrate his/her point without any ambiguity as in science clarity is essential. In conclusion, it can be seen that poetry and science have completely different purposes and different means of attaining these purposes. Furthermore, each of these specific areas of knowledge means to expand different types of knowledge and pertain to different ways of knowing. However, one must realize that it is essential to have a balance between the scientific or factual knowledge, and the poetic/aesthetic knowledge or the emotional understanding of human nature. Therefore, in these terms science successfully expands its portion of human knowledge successfully expands its. Therefore, it can be concluded that each area of knowledge has equal success in expanding knowledge in its respective area. In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry its the exact opposite.(P A M Dirac) Do both the approaches suggested in the quotation enjoy equal success in expanding human knowledge?

Lusitania Essay -- essays research papers

Lusitania It was 2:10 p.m. on May 7, 1915. Leslie Morton, a lookout on the Lusitania, screamed, "Torpedoes coming on the starboard side." Two explosions followed. Within 18 minutes the huge liner, once the largest ever built, sank to the bottom of the Celtic Sea. 1,195 out of the 1,959 people aboard died. Walther Schwieger, commander of the German submarine U- 20, who had fired a single torpedo 750 yards away from the ship, later called it the most horrible sight he had ever seen. The Lusitania entered service between Liverpool and New York on September 7, 1907. Funded by the British Admiralty, the Lusitania, built by the Cunard Steamship Company, was required to double as an auxiliary cruiser in case of war. This was a secret agreement between the Admiralty and Cunard. On May 12, 1913 she was put in drydock to be double plated and hydraulically riveted, as well as modified for the application of guns. War was declared on August 4, 1914, and the ship was sent again into drydock. There she was armed with 12 six-inch guns(Simpson 60). Britain wanted to ship war materials over the Atlantic, but there was an embargo of shipping munitions on passenger ships. America also tended to publish the cargo manifests so that the Allies as well as the Germans would know what is being shipped. Britain found a loophole in this. New cargo added at the last minute did not go on the original manifest, thus a supplementary manifest would be submitted 4 or 5 days later. Also, due to t...

China’s Olympic Torch Controversy

In a world where media are able to put a glaring spotlight on certain events, actions done by ordinary individuals gain greater attention from other people. The internet further amplifies the magnitude of these events because people from other countries can immediately know what is happening. This enables them to draw their own conclusions regarding the actions that were just covered. Such is the case of the controversy surrounding the on-going Olympic Torch relay. What was supposed to be a journey that could promote peace and understanding among different cultures has turned into a fiasco. Protesters have come in full force to disrupt this event. From Paris to London, the world has to come to witness several people trying to grab the Olympic Torch. The protesters targeted this event as a venue to ventilate their sentiments regarding China’s treatment of the unrest that had erupted in Tibet last month where China sent its paramilitary forces to crackdown on the Tibetan protesters (â€Å"China’s View of the Olympic Torch†. 09 April 2008. TIME Magazine online). This has led to protest calls from various sectors especially in Western countries. Some clamor by asking China to stop its heavy handed treatment of dissenters in Tibet while others like Hillary Clinton have asked their governments to boycott the Beijing Olympics opening ceremonies as a strong disapproval of Beijing’s standing policy with regard to Tibet. This issue can be seen as part of a long standing question in international relations (â€Å"Clinton urges Bush to boycott Beijing Olympics†. 7 April 2008. Yahoo News). The question being, should individuals from other countries be involved in another country’s problems? To be able to generate an answer to this question, one must define the parameters for the terms individuals, involvement and problems. In the case of the individuals, there are two kinds that are pertinent to this discussion. These are the private citizens and the public officials. The ordinary citizens include those who try to disrupt the proceedings by attempting to wrest the Olympic torch and by displaying the Tibetan flag are examples of what are known as private citizens. Public officials refer to politicians in other countries that are expressing their dissent over the policies of other countries. Involvement is defined here as the actions done by the identified individuals. This may include cajoling, beseeching or pressuring officials through such acts disrupting the events or by issuing officials statements condemning the policies of the country in question. Problems, due to space constraints and timeliness, would be limited to issues on human rights. This issue is one of the most important points of contention between Western countries especially the United States and other nations such as China and Russia in recent years. This paper argues that involvement in issues such as human rights should be limited to the actions done by private citizens and that public officials should refrain from issuing official statements that criticizes the policies of other government’s with regard to human rights. Why is this so? If one is to look at the recent track record of the US government regarding the issue of human rights, one would find sufficient ammunition to fire back to the US side of the fence. The well-documented infamous cases of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prison camps highlight the abuses that are also taking place within the backyard of the United States. Theses cases have led some officials from both China and Russia to criticize the alleged double standards being practiced by the United States in its dealings with other countries. China and Russia often challenge the US claims made through official State Department reports regarding their respective human rights record (Cody A14). In a nutshell, they argued that before the US issues such official statements it should first see to it that its own house is in order. One could also consider the lack of efficacy of these official calls on these countries to reform. It had only infuriated them and their existing policies on human rights have not changed despite these repeated calls. Also, these official statements have contributed to making negotiations in other important areas such as security and trade even more difficult at best and highly contentious at worst. Now if one is to engage in involvement, one can argue that it would be best left in the hands of private citizens. This is warranted for several reasons. In an era where there have been numerous cases of human rights of abuses, there is a recognizable need to highlight this particular issue. The private citizens at this point are in the best position to do it for two reasons. One is that they are not burdened by the labels of hypocrisy and lacking in moral authority that have been attached to the US government in the aftermath of its prison camps fiasco. When an individual like Steven Spielberg protests by declaring himself unavailable to be a technical consultant for the Beijing Games he is not labeled as hypocrite and his message is delivered to the public. Two, private citizens who exhibit involvement; especially in the form of very dramatic forms of protests can get their much desired media mileage. They consequently derive public sympathy for their respective causes as well. One could cite the case of Olympic medalist Sebastian Coe who was manhandled by the paramilitary forces assigned by Beijing to protect the Olympic torch(â€Å"China’s View of the Olympic Torch†. April 2008. TIME Magazine online). The incident involving him generated substantial media attention on the protest against the Chinese government’s action on Tibet while not causing any direct problems among government officials. The protests done by ordinary citizens if carried by major news outfits can generate support from around the world wit hout exactly obliging their governments to issue officials statements that can adversely affect immediate and long-term relationships with countries whose policies are being questioned.

5 Things the Sat Does Not Measure or Predict