| HEAVENLY KNOWLEDGE: An Astrophysicist Seeks Wisdom in the Stars Fiorella Terenzi New York: Avon Books, 1998 |
Rating: 3.5 Fair |
|||
| ISBN-13 978-0-380-97412-2 | ||||
| ISBN 0-380-97412-6 | 196pp. | HC/BWI | $22.00 | |
Leaving aside the merits of Dr. Terenzi's book, or the other means she uses to promote her vision of a reformed science, what can be said about the value of the vision itself?
First, let's make sure we understand what that vision entails. In her prologue, referring to that transcendent moment on the Milan hillside, she has this to say:
| The first human must have felt something akin to this when she stepped out of her cave and turned her eyes skyward: shaken, empowered, humbled, mystified. What is this glorious display, this radiant cave ceiling that arches over the entire landscape? What is this fiery ball that cruises across the sky by day? This pale crescent that rises behind the mountains and follows me through the night? And that sudden streak of light that leaves its ephemeral mark in the sky like a piece of stone scratched against the cave wall—what is that? |
| Am I a part of all this? Can I ever know it? Does it know me? What does it tell me about my life? Can it show me how to construct my own internal universe? |
| For me, on the eve of the 21st Century with astounding new cosmic discoveries occurring at observatories almost daily, these first questions remain the most profound questions astrophysics can ask. |
| And yet somehow the sense of how I felt on that first night with my grandmother easily fades from the professional astronomer's mind and heart, just as the sky fades from view when the lights of the cities emit an impenetrable pale curtain between earth and sky. We become blinded by a technological barrier of abstract mathematical theorems and complex astronomical machinery, and we forget to feel the wonder of infinite space. We fail to communicate with loquacious celestial objects. We fall into the 20th Century trap of believing that the only knowledge we can gain from the universe is objective facts and not poetic truths about our lives. We become deaf to the music of the spheres. And worst of all, we are afraid to look into the stars' eyes. |
| Heavenly Knowledge is my attempt to bring this sense of wonder back to astronomy. I enthusiastically embrace the fabulous new discoveries of astrophysics, but I do not want to stop there. I want these discoveries to swim in our imaginations, to open our hearts to new ways of thinking and feeling about life, about men and women, about catastrophes and rituals. I want us all to hear how the music of the spheres resonates with the music of our hearts. |
Very well; this passage articulates her vision clearly. If I may translate it into my own words, Fiorella wants to keep the minutiae of science: the painstaking measurements, and the measuring instruments used to obtain them; the software, and the analysis it performs; the objective facts discovered by measurement and analysis; and of course the scientific method of testing hypotheses by experiment that is the basis of the whole endeavor. At the same time she rejects what some call "scientism" — the notion that objective measurements and quantifiable results are all that matters. She refuses to let her feelings be drowned in floods of facts. (Yes, that can and does happen.)1
It may be possible, in some ultimate, abstract sense, that everything in the universe can be explained by one all-encompassing natural law. If this were true, it might also become possible, with enough computing power, to quantify all natural phenomena and achieve perfect predictability. But all the science we know today says that the first is not possible, so it would take a reformation of science far more radical than the one Dr. Terenzi advocates. As for the second, even with the quantum computer — barely more than a theoretical possibility today — the sheer scope and complexity of the universe makes it utterly impracticable. An additional problem is the limited capacity of the human minds that would have to direct those ultimate computers.
These limitations are the reason that no scientist of any caliber supports scientism. In fact, I'll venture to guess that Dr. Terenzi has never encountered true scientism. I expect, rather, that what revolted her was the tendency to "simplicity by fiat" — attempting to command unwelcome complexity out of existence (or at least out of relevance). It is a common male tendency, and not confined to scientific organizations. The reasons for it to crop up in specific cases are complex; but at bottom it springs from the way men are socialized for leadership. In essence, the role of the leader when facing any problem is to instantly decide on a course of action and order subordinates to carry it out. When there is no pre-existing hierarchy, someone will automatically assume the mantle of leadership. The fewer factors the leader has to deal with, the easier his task becomes; thus things often get ignored. This method works (usually) for social problems; but nature cannot be commanded by fiat.
I think Dr. Terenzi must have faced a double obstacle. On the one hand, she understood that "simplicity by fiat" is antithetical to true science; that while it may permit incremental progress in a narrow specialty, it blocks conceptual breakthroughs (as well as stunting true humanity in its adherents). On the other hand, as an outgrowth of male chauvinism covert or overt, it militates against the feminine approach to problems and to life. Since I don't know all the details of her situation, I step out on a rather slender limb with this assessment; but it seems small wonder that she rebelled.
Do I support her stated goals? Yes, certainly, just as I support the viewpoint expressed in Robert Frost's poem "When I heard the learned astronomer". I do not support "feminist science," any more than I support "masculinist science." What's wanted, I believe, is not a "blending" or "melding" of masculine and feminine2 (assuming it were even possible), but rather what might best be labeled "context switching" — consciously choosing the behavior and cognitive style appropriate to the situation.3
I do not necessarily endorse her methods; nor do I condemn them. Perhaps one day I will know her well enough to make that judgement. Today I have only a vague feeling that all she is doing is composing and performing enjoyable music, giving dynomite concerts, advising her woman friends on relationship problems, and generally having a great time at life. I have no objection at all to those things; but they may not be the most effective way to reform a male-dominated science establishment.
To contact Chris Winter, send email to this address.