After reading Joshua Roebke's essay "The Reality Tests" I think I need an asprin or perhaps a very large glass of wine. I am going to be honest and take the opportunity given to me by my English Professor and not be afraid to write "outside the box". The essay was the most confusing piece of writing I have ever read. I say this after I reading Shakespeare's Twelfth Night only a couple of weeks ago, which at that time I thought was the roughest writing I had read up until that point, well maybe accept for Einstein's "Theory of Relativity". (no I didn't read that, I could only image and speculate. LOL) The essay completely went on and on, and the more I went back to re-read what I read the more confusing it got. I am not the sharpest knife in the set, but really I don't think I am that stupid either. I am fustrated too, by the fact that I am an older reader and I feel that maybe I should have some magical insight, but alas it is not the case. I would sum this essay up in these words. Roebke bascially tells you the story of a bunch of very smart and intelligent scientists who all think they have the answer to why we see things the way we see things. As very smart scientists they cannot possibly agree that maybe we see things the way we see things just because that is what see, plain and simple. They all have this passionate need and complusion to have a explanation for everything and write it down on paper. I noticed as I read that is seems that each set of scientists agrees not to agree, and then agrees partly, but then not all the way. I found it to be almost humorous, although the author of course did not write it to be humorous, but to be very stiff, cut and dry. I must admit for the first time after reading something, it didn't make me want to think about it, the subject is just to big and overwhelming. It reminds me of the time I tried to understand what infinity looks like or heaven. I believe that we are not meant to understand everything and everything does not need to be explained, it is, what it is, case closed. To attempt to answer the question given to us for this blog: Do we create what we observe through the act of our obervations? Hummm it makes me reflect on the old question of: Which came first the chicken or the egg? or How much wood, could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Please pardon the immaturity of my observation but seriously, I don't know how to answer that without smiling and laughing. I am trying to think of how to best explain, but I feel that I may not be understood. How do we explain something that is so obviously over your head. The author uses Quantum mechanics throughout this essay, I felt that I needed a PhD just to see where and why this is all tied together. I feel that I am left with a confused state of observation.
One weakness in Roebke's thesis is, what if you can't answer the question? What if there is no way to prove or disprove his thesis. It seems that the greatest scientists were unable to figure it out. I think his theory and theisis will be argued until the cows come home. I say forget it and move on...let us not have answers to everything and just believe that what you see is, what you see, and tomorrow is another day.
I realize that some students will have amazing words of wisdom and totally get this essay. For me, I won't and that is ok too! People all have their strengths and weakness's and this high level thinking about ideas that are really out there is not my strength, but if I read an essay about small animals I would totally get it...
Nancy. First of all I would like to say that I also noticed that it seemed like the scientists seemed to go back and forth on their agreeing and disagreeing and what not. It made me think to myself "hmmm do THEY even know what's going on??"
ReplyDeleteall humor aside this is a very large topic to address and because all people are not the same and do not think the same and do not have all of the same life experiences, there probably will never be a universally accepted answer to the question.