Prob 4.a

Why a scientist must read poetry:

I looked at this topic in reference to writing in general last semester, and was able to discover a rich relationship between science and writing. Poetry is a symbolic, nuanced, and mysterious form of writing that aligns with many parts of science where the researchers act as detectives. Therefore, I am going to adapt my ideas about writing and reevaluate this connection:

Every particle in the universe has an effect on every other, no matter how small. Human experience is based upon the acknowledgement of the effects, both physical and emotional, through varying levels of abstraction. Life is about exploring and finding which interactions between things are important and investigating them further. Sensors and poetry both serve to amplify these relationships to the point that they are able to be observed by humans. Sensors help to demonstrate connections between physical or electrical events and are tied to a temporal relationship. Poetry works to identify and develop connections that are often deep in the emotional and abstract, but equally significant, dimensions of the world.. A scientist uses a sensor to glean things about the world, just as a poet learns as he/she composes. The feelings in one’s mind are often as scrambled as the sub-atomic particles that make up the mind itself that a researcher might study.

An example of a sensor is a simple sun position measuring tool that you may recognize from the north engineering quad.  The gnomon (shadow casting element) is the first part of the sensor, reaching into the sky as a spire. The movement of the distant--by relative scale--sun is amplified and visually represented on the ground below. The sun, millions of miles away, casts a discrete shadow, and markings beneath translate it to a language humans understand. Everything in the world casts a shadow, and writers and poets are those who are able to illuminate it.

Just like the sensor, this post connects two phenomena as it shows the critical relationship between seemingly discrete disciplines. It analytically identifies the effect of sensors and writing poetry on human understanding and amplifies the significance of both by making the all important connection, forming both physical and figurative neural pathways. A poet and a scientist are not so different, studying different planes of reality with much intersection. The effects and the connections often become convoluted through layer upon layer of interpretation and redefinition, but pulling a poem apart to reveal its underlying threads will always reveal sensorial qualities. As a poet works to transcribe the world onto paper, the scientist gathers data from a sensor. Like poems, every sensor, even the simplest of digital switches, tells a story.

Though I originally spent my time thinking about this concept with regards to essay writing, I actually like it more in conversation with poetry. The interpretive element of reading a poem is ridiculously similar to that of reading instruments. That is why a scientist should certainly read poetry, and go even further than just read. He/she has to work to fully come to an understanding of the poem (whether it was the intended one or not) because the critical thinking involved is crucial. I know that this thought experiment has encouraged ME to look closely at poems, and I hope some other future scientists can be inspired as well.

To my STEM-loving peers, do any o these concepts resonate with you? I’m curious to hear what you think.