Attempts at Accounting (my titles are so tacky)

            I propose a moment of silence in thanks to the powers that be (Atkins would credit chaotic energy) that insects have not “hit on a plan for driving air through their tissues instead of letting it soak in,” and “become as large as lobsters” (Haldane, 57).  Phew.  As if earwigs are not awful enough already.  Imagine a rabbit-sized earwig.  Oh, the shivers.  Additionally, I am consoled at learning the irrationality of beast-sized insects too often portrayed in science-fiction films.  Like, that’s not even realistic, guys.

            A favorite challenge of mine is to consider Downs’ thoughts behind the article assignments.  Probably, he opens our class books at random and decides the topic the way a spontaneous preacher feeling “led by the Spirit” would.  Nope, they are way too purposeful for that.  Then again, if we adhere to Atkins’ argument, that all “order” is truly randomized chaos, my hypothesis may not be too off mark.  In any case, I appreciated the simultaneous compatibility and confliction the three articles presented.

            All three explained natural phenomena using numbers.  I am tempted to leap into a discussion of the human need for reason and purpose, and the pervasiveness of this idea of “intelligent design.”  Atkins’ article seemed oddly ironic.  The content said, plainly: “what appears to us to be motive and purpose is in fact ultimately motiveless, purposeless decay” (Atkins, 13).  Yet the quality (dare I say purpose?) of his piece was, in fact, an explanation.  An explanation evoked by the truth that humans desire reason and purpose in life.  Why is it that humanity, compared to animals, has a need for a sense of purpose and order in life?  While Atkins may be able to argue that natural life is inherently chaotic and unorganized, he cannot go against the fact that his curiosity drove him to his research and writing.  One does not argue against something unless there is preexisting evidence or thought for it.  What precipitated or caused this desire?  Like I said before, I am tempted to explore these thoughts, but the length of a typical blog post falls short for the response needed to answer this question, if an answer can even be found.

Crichton and Socrates; never thought I'd put these two boys together.

            Instead, let’s discuss the quantitative nature of the pieces.  All three talk about vast ideas, nicely organized around the ideas of numbers.  Socrates argued that the human notion of numbers and quantities originated from the true number “forms:” perfect ideas or examples existing before humanity, and picked up by our souls as they traveled from the ethereal heavenly realms into our bodies.  While I cannot entirely agree with the great philosopher, I will not attempt to counteract his argument.  I have no idea why math is so inherent to the mind.  Michael Crichton, the great science-fiction writer, postulated in Sphere that were we to converse with intelligent life outside earth, math would likely be our common language, because it is found everywhere and is not dependent on ideologies or cultural mindsets.  It simply "is."  The forward to Atkins’ article contained a compelling quote: “When we have dealt with the values of the fundamental constants by seeing that they are unavoidably so, and have dismissed them as irrelevant, we shall have arrived at complete understanding” (Atkins, 12).  It seems careless to “dismiss” such vast concepts as “it’s just the way it is,” but it seems if research is to make any progress, it must do so.  Willful ignorance then, drives one of the greatest intellectual endeavors of mankind: science.  Puts an odd perspective on things.  My sister said this the other day: “Science describes reality, but it cannot define it.”  So perfectly put. 

            Well, this was going to be a style critique.  So much for that.