Monday, April 12, 2010
The Reality Tests
I absolutely hate science. I don't even want to read this article at all. It just blows my mind that I can be so bored after finishing only the first page and a half. Usually I really try to take notes and reword things to help myself along, this is not my first rodeo with text that scares me to death a.k.a. anything math or science related. As much as I learn to read through the uninteresting text, I just don't want to. I worked my entire high school and college schedules to work around ever having to take physics, and that is exactly what this article is about. Before I began my blog entry on this article The Reality Tests, I made a lot of my blog comments first. From making those comments I realized how much I had to say about something I've never even read. Analyzing what others had written on something I didn't read sounds like a pretty arrogant thing to do. Rather than analyzing the text the writers were speaking about, I tried to analyze what the writers had written about that text. Kind of like a collaboration on the text. They just happen to be the more important part of the conversation because they have the background knowledge and resources to back up the questions that are being posed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LOL! I am a pre-med student and I felt completely uninterested and also a little confused as to what Roebke was talking about. As far as I was concerned, after I finally made it through reading the article, was that the argument itself made no sense. I TRIED to read others who explain Roebke's argument and I still have the same response; No one can escape reality.
ReplyDelete"Rather than analyzing the text the writers were speaking about, I tried to analyze what the writers had written about that text. Kind of like a collaboration on the text."
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be what a lot of student writers do -- they write about the conversation they hear during class discussion or in your case the conversation digitized -- without really becoming part of the argument's conversation. IT's not arrogance, but it is missing the point, yes? You say you value the written word more than the spoken word - see your "Beep Beep" post. Well, which written word is the most valuable here?
Obviously the written original text that is done by an expert in a certain subject is vital to the conversation even existing, but the conversation itself has to hold some importance too considering writers like me who are uninterested in the original topic. However in real life considering the lack of interest I would never actually write about this topic, therefore what I have to say on it become somewhat unimportant doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYeaaaa... I think pretty much everyone who had to read this article had the same opinion about it. When I started reading I was like wait... quantum physics? Did I sign up for the wrong class? And I definitely agree that it was a tough read just because half the stuff Roebke was saying was completely going way over my head. The little information I understood from the article helped clarify what I think Roebke's argument was.
ReplyDeleteRoebke is trying to explain the concept that what we consider reality, isn't really reality. There is so much action going on around us that most of it actually remains unseen and unknown. Our bodies limit the types of information we can perceive and only let us in on parts of the big picture. The reason we are missing parts of reality is because things are either too fast, too small, too big, or too much at once and our bodies are unable to properly measure them.
I don't know if this helps at all. If it confused you more sorry haha.
I really disliked this article too! I had no idea what he was talking about besides that in physics and in life there are more then what the eye sees. What he really wanted me to get from the article didn't happen. I tried to just look at the overall picture rather then his stupid science details.
ReplyDelete