Many great accomplishments and people were mentioned in the reading about the Enlightenment, however what one man did really stuck out to me. I thought it was enticing how Bernard de Fontenelle incorporated science with witty and entertaining pieces of literature. Nowadays, I know that I, as well as many others, do not keep up with the latest scientific accomplishments because they are confusing, hard to understand, and rather boring. I feel that if information was presented in this way for just about any topic, science included, the information would be received and absorbed with much more enthusiasm, and thus effectiveness. This had a similar effect on people of Fontenelle's time.
However, after rethinking this, I felt as if some information presented in Fontenelle's style might be slightly skewed in order to provide a more entertaining plot. This is especially relevant in the play Galileo, that we just read. While basic concepts and theories were presented factually in the play, much of what actually happened in real life was changed to make the play more entertaining, as stated in the introduction. Also, works of literature can often be tainted to fit the views of the person who created it, in order to promote the authors ideas. Do you think the way Fontenelle presented information was positive or negative? Nowadays, do you think it would be okay if someone were to present information in a similar fashion?
I think the way Fontenelle presented information was very positive. It shows that information can be entertaining and encourages everyone to learn about it. Also, it can be much easier to read so that, in this case, even people with not much scientific knowledge can still learn and be involved in the scientific community. Nowadays, I think it would be effective to present information in a similar fashion because it is easier to retain information on something that interests you compared to something that bores you. I do think that information may get mixed or changed to make it interesting, but it is a much easier way of presenting information to the public.
ReplyDeleteI personally find subjects such as science and math boring and repetitive because they are very straightforward; therefore I would find Fontenelle's humor-infused works much more enticing. I believe by incorporating character into his works, Fontenelle got his points across, while captivating and entertaining his readers, something many scientist couldn't do. Furthermore, by infusing humor into his works, Fontenelle made science less intimidating for a world of people who didn't have much prior scientific experience. As in Fontenelle's era, I believe people nowadays would benefit from his style of writing because it would be an enjoyable way to learn, rather than a hassle or an annoyance. Also, by meshing together science and humor, science would become more relatable to real life, and not some foreign, complicated world.
ReplyDeleteI think that Fontenelle's work was definitely biased and subjective, but it definitely had a positive effect on the people. Without Fontenelle's literature and similar pieces, I think that the scientific revolution would have never transformed into the enlightenment. I say this because the scientific revolution primarily targeted philosophers, theologists and scientists, and thus most of the information was presented in a language that was only discernible to the highly educated. Fontenelle's method was to transform these complicated topics into understandable concepts that more of the population could understand and thus could react to and build on. The enlightenment was only made possible because of the "public sphere", a community that would not have existed without universal understanding of the revolutionary ideas presented during the scientific revolution. In conclusion, I guess one could say that the enlightenment was a public revolution, while the scientific revolution was truly and primarily a "scientific" revolt. Fontenelle linked the gap between the two.
ReplyDeleteyes, I think that it would make the news more entertaining and make the public more inclined to watch. This would make society more informed of political matters, as well as well as world crisis. I think that what these people did in this time period was brave and very smart because they were able to get their points across without being too much of a threat to their government and possibly drawing negative attention to themselves.
ReplyDeleteI think that there has to be a balance between the two of them. The far extremes, either incomprehensible but accurate writing, or witty but factually incorrect writing, are both bad. One needs to strike a balance between readability yet scientific accuracy. Though, I do not think that entertainment is a necessity because that is not what science is about. Science is about learning and discovery, so in order to most effectively communicate the new scientific theories, a writer would only have to make it readable and factually correct. So, the way that you describe Fontenelle's work seems too simple and not factual.
ReplyDelete