As Understood through Creativity

            Like a novice musician joining a rehearsal for the New York Philharmonic, I feel privilege in writing these posts.  I am joining a conversation held by some of the brightest minds in the fields of rhetoric and science, and being read. Quite exciting.

My feelings on writing alongside Fisher, Graves, and Thomas.  Hope I'm not too badly outta' key.  

             I begin with Fisher, because I feel the other two authours integrate well into his discussion.  Having read this piece before, I was excited to garnersomething new from it: “Recounting and accounting for are, in addition, the bases for all advisory discourse. Regardless of the form they may assume, recounting and accounting for a stories we tell ourselves and each other to establish a meaningful life-world.  The character of narrator(s), the conflicts, the resolutions, and the style will vary, but each mode of recounting and accounting for is but a way of relating “truth” about the human condition (Fisher, 381).”  My thought is this—does the flexible, changing, unpredictable, and continually-being-discovered character of the natural world benefit from, if not demand, a more flexible approach in its discussion?  That is, does the narrative approach afford a more creative and open-ended look at science, which is in fact, a continual process of discovery?  Fisher suggests that the manner in which one writes is an argument in itself, alongside the material presented.  In this case, it’s exciting to look at science as one large story unfolding to which we are privy, and write about it in a reflecting manner.  As the man wrote, “…the narrative paradigm…does not so much deny what has gone before as it subsumes it (Fisher, 376).”   He touches on this idea that the nature of narrative is descriptive, compared to the "rational world paradigm's" interpretive nature.  Science writing as narration falls under criticism for bias, in that it presents emotional or subjective facts.  However, considering the fact that narrative is based on description, where “rational writing” is based on interpretation, the opposite case could be made.  If the reader is free to infer their own meaning, as they are from narrative rather than concrete “rational” writing, is that not less “bias?” Hmmm.  One more thought.  We discuss the fact that science writing can push those who are not elite in the subject to the margins, and exclude many from entering the conversation.  However, Fisher notes that “Narration…does not presume intellectual contact only.”  Narration has a welcoming nature. 

            Sorry, Thomas and Graves.  I promise to get you some airtime, too.  “7 Wonders” provides an apt example of narration communicating both in method and in material.  His essay details not only seven fascinating subjects in contemporary science, but also through the manner of the story itself, presents how evolving science continually adds to that which is “wonderful.”  Fisher would be proud. 

            Okay, Graves.  You put forth the idea that language is as much an element of discovery and learning, as it is an element of communicating.  I’m going to skirt your discussion on reality as construed by rhetoric and therefore bound to human interpretation (namely, because I have too few words left to discuss that behemoth of an idea), and instead appreciate an insight you offered—we cannot believe everything we think we know.  Counterintuitive as it may seem, our understandings (particularly of science) are often based off of a rhetorical understanding through the interpretation of another scientist or researcher.  But, to bounce back to what Hancock said, we needn't be afraid to create new words.  We need to boldly charge into science writing, not afraid to develop new ways of communication.  It would seem, the surprising, fascinating, past-defying, and groundbreaking nature of science demands no less.