First appeared in the Boston Globe.
www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/05/13/qa_with_natalie_angier
When I called New York Times science writer Natalie Angier
to discuss her new book, "The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful
Basics of Science," I started by asking why, in the new work, is there
little of the impatience with religion she has expressed in some of her essays?
In "Confessions of a Lonely Atheist," for example, she complained
that for nonbelievers like herself America's "current climate of
religiosity can be stifling." In "My God Problem" she challenged
scientists who felt similarly to step up: "Why is it," she demanded,
"that most scientists avoid criticizing religion even as they decry the
supernatural mind-set?"
In "The Canon," Angier agitates energetically for
scientific literacy by highlighting key elements of scientific thinking, and by
devoting chapters to, as she puts it, the "sciences generally awarded the
preamble 'hard.'" The chapter on astronomy, for example, centers on the
ineffable instant in which our universe blossomed out of the Big Bang. The
section on molecular biology features a reprise of the high-speed commotion
that prevails within a human cell even before it's time to split the DNA and
divide.
And one finds that Angier's polemical edge, when she cares
to display it, is as keen as ever: She writes, for example, that proponents of
creationism and/or intelligent design strike her as subscribing to sadly
"data-deprived ideologies."
IDEAS: What was your goal with "The Canon"?
ANGIER: In order to follow science, even in the newspapers,
you have to have some confidence that you get the basic lay of the land, the
geography of the scientific continent. I was trying to convey the basic ideas
behind scientific thinking in a way people would understand.
IDEAS: Is there any special reason why Americans are poorly
educated in science?
ANGIER: Our obsession with money plays into it. I think
there is some truth to David Baltimore's observation that people used to making
a lot of money don't get that interested in science, science being a sort of
blue-collar profession that requires a lot of hands-on work and that is
probably not going to make you rich.
IDEAS: Is writing easy for you?
ANGIER: No. Mostly it's a question of trying to quiet the
dybbuks -- all the voices that tell you you're no good, you can't do it, every
kind of criticism you can come up with. You're just trying to shut them up and
let yourself go. I'd say I spend 50 percent of my time trying to get them out
of the way. There are times when I do enjoy writing, but they are definitely in
a minority.
IDEAS: Your writing has a lot of imagery and wordplay. Why?
ANGIER: When I write I go into an almost
stream-of-consciousness way of looking at things. Do I think that way when I'm
not writing? Sometimes. I try to understand things metabolically, by really
digesting it, having it on a gut level, feeling it's inside you. I always try
to get that for myself in grappling with various topics. When I write I try to
get someone to go through that process with me, investigating the material from
the inside out.
IDEAS: It feels as though the imagery allows you to assert
your femininity as a science writer. Is that so?
ANGIER: No, it's not about a concern with femininity. It's
about trying to feel some kind of passion. Don't you want to have a more
heightened experience? Isn't that what you're always reaching for? It's what
I'm always reaching for, in the way I look at the world and in the way I write.
It's the same with my attempts at humor. The goal is to expand and rejoice as
opposed to being an unhappy, angry person, which I am by nature. And when you
can play around with language, it takes care of the fear, somehow.
IDEAS: When it comes to the situation of women in the
sciences, do you see progress?
ANGIER: I've looked at the roster of the National Academy of
Sciences to see what percentage of new members are women. In one piece I did
for the Times, I saw signs of progress. But women have to continue to fight
because you do have people like Larry Summers who comes along and casually
says, Oh, here's a provocative question we shouldn't be afraid to ask. Why are
there so few women at the genius level in science? Is it because they're
inferior in science? Or is it maybe because they're not driven as much as men
are? Anyway, let's talk about it.
This gets thrown out there, and it's one more thing we have
to deal with. Do we really need Larry Summers shooting from the lip?
IDEAS: In writing about the Big Bang, you convey how amazing
it was. But isn't it a cold kind of amazement? How are we supposed to feel
about the origin of the universe? How is it supposed to matter in our lives?
ANGIER: Well, the fact that the Big Bang leads to
intelligent life says something fundamental about the nature of matter and
energy, I think, and its tendency to form complex patterns. I have this debate
with my colleague Dennis Overbye, who argues that the universe is cold, the
universe doesn't care.
IDEAS: You don't agree?
ANGIER: No. I think he's setting himself apart from the
universe. I say to Dennis, do you believe your life is meaningless? He says,
no. Do you believe you're part of the universe? He says, yes. So how can you
say the universe has no meaning? You are meaning, you are part of it. I think
it's legitimate to see the universe as wanting to know itself.
IDEAS: Are you saying that we were intended from the
beginning?
ANGIER: Was the universe stewing on us for the last 13.4
billion years? No. But it's the outcome. We're here. It's a cold fact that
we're here, and we are incorrigible meaning-generators.
Of course, I also believe, with no evidence, that there are
many other civilizations like ours out there, so you could say the universe is
filled with meaning. But did the universe intend that at the beginning?
[laughs] As a meaning-generating character I can confidently say I don't think
so.
But let's just say that we decide -- and it would be a great
thing to decide -- that our purpose in life is to understand the universe.
We've done a spectacular job so far, and have a lot more work to do. I really
wish we were doing that instead of spending a trillion dollars on the Iraq war.
I really wish we could figure out how to get to the point where most of us wish
that. Will we get to that point? I don't know.
No comments:
Post a Comment