Read an article today that announced Vladimir Nabokov's Theory of Butterfly Evolution to be 100% correct.
Nabokov, renowned author of Lolita, published his theory in a 1945 paper. It was met with very little, if any, support. The novelist was a self-taught Butterfly expert and observer and it was for this reason he was not taken seriously. If anything he was regarded as an unoriginal enthusiast.
Some 6-1/2 decades later, his postulated arrival of and later the development of New World Butterflies --- which could not at the time be DNA-verified--- is now the accepted explanation!
I find it both funny and tragically sad that someone, who spent the greater part of his life studying and observing something, might be considered less of a scientist than someone whose "degree" is in the same field. There seems to be this need for a person's identity to be determined by the certificates of study and diplomas earned.
But, there is no magic in a piece of paper.
Are we not scientists if our methods are the same as those with printed diplomas??
It is said that each half of our brain controls specific parts of our personality--- the right side being more logical, science/math based and the left side being more creative, music/art based. For the most part, one side generally outweighs the other in strength....you might be great at math, but are completely lost when it comes to composing an essay. Or, vice versa.
Maybe this is what prevented the scientific community, during Nabokov's day, from accepting his taxonomic strength. He was an accepted novelist, so he should have no right-brain strength for studying and classifying butterflies.
This idea of either-or has never appealed to me. Yes, there will be some things that I will be better at than others and some things I will not be better at than others. But, it doesn't mean I can't have strengths on both sides.
A balance of both sides, it seems to me, would be the best goal to strive for. The logical mind is fine with the research, but may not be creative enough to extrapolate into a future unknown. The creative mind is fine with divining future worlds, but may not be precise enough to make those dreams a reality.
So, yes, an author can be a scientist. And, in certain situations it is very necessary for an author to be a scientist. The very future of the world may depend on it.
Nabokov, renowned author of Lolita, published his theory in a 1945 paper. It was met with very little, if any, support. The novelist was a self-taught Butterfly expert and observer and it was for this reason he was not taken seriously. If anything he was regarded as an unoriginal enthusiast.
Some 6-1/2 decades later, his postulated arrival of and later the development of New World Butterflies --- which could not at the time be DNA-verified--- is now the accepted explanation!
I find it both funny and tragically sad that someone, who spent the greater part of his life studying and observing something, might be considered less of a scientist than someone whose "degree" is in the same field. There seems to be this need for a person's identity to be determined by the certificates of study and diplomas earned.
But, there is no magic in a piece of paper.
Are we not scientists if our methods are the same as those with printed diplomas??
It is said that each half of our brain controls specific parts of our personality--- the right side being more logical, science/math based and the left side being more creative, music/art based. For the most part, one side generally outweighs the other in strength....you might be great at math, but are completely lost when it comes to composing an essay. Or, vice versa.
Maybe this is what prevented the scientific community, during Nabokov's day, from accepting his taxonomic strength. He was an accepted novelist, so he should have no right-brain strength for studying and classifying butterflies.
This idea of either-or has never appealed to me. Yes, there will be some things that I will be better at than others and some things I will not be better at than others. But, it doesn't mean I can't have strengths on both sides.
A balance of both sides, it seems to me, would be the best goal to strive for. The logical mind is fine with the research, but may not be creative enough to extrapolate into a future unknown. The creative mind is fine with divining future worlds, but may not be precise enough to make those dreams a reality.
So, yes, an author can be a scientist. And, in certain situations it is very necessary for an author to be a scientist. The very future of the world may depend on it.
Love it! Tell it like it is.
ReplyDeleteThanks! Just my humble opinion....lol :-)
ReplyDelete