
What's Romantic About Science?When science became a source of sublime terror.
Updated Monday, July 20, 2009, at 6:53 AM ET
The last time a scientific breakthrough made the front page, it was because science threatened to kill us all. The launch of the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland last September was greeted with headlines like Time's "Collider Triggers End-of-the-World Fears" as journalists tried to calculate the odds that the world's largest particle accelerator would accidentally tear apart the space-time continuum and annihilate the Earth. And it is not just such doomsday scenarios that make us suspicious of technological progress: On a philosophical level, too, scientific advances can look like human retreats. A century and a half after Darwin, there are millions of Christians who see evolution as an intolerable blow to human dignity, just as there are millions of environmentalists who see Western science as a scourge of the planet.
These 21st-century conundrums have been with us for a long time. In The Age of Wonder: How the Romantic Generation Discovered the Beauty and Terror of Science, Richard Holmes explores an early-19th-century period of terrific—and often terrified—excitement about science, of marvelous discoveries that raised humble experimenters to the rank of national heroes. Holmes' subjects—including astronomer William Herschel, chemist Humphry Davy, and explorer Mungo Park—were household names in England, but their discoveries were by no means always welcome ones. Herschel's observation of the stars, for instance, showed that the Milky Way was just one of a vast number of galaxies that were constantly being born, aging, and dying. The Milky Way, Herschel warned, "cannot last forever." It followed, as Holmes writes, that "our solar system, our planet, and hence our whole civilization would have an ultimate and unavoidable end." For the first time, the apocalypse was not a matter of religious faith but of demonstrated scientific fact.
Herschel's discoveries represent one face of what Holmes calls, loosely but suggestively, Romantic science. The phrase sounds like an oxymoron, as Holmes acknowledges: "Romanticism as a cultural force is generally regarded as intensely hostile to science, its ideal of subjectivity eternally opposed to that of scientific objectivity. But I do not believe this was always the case, or that the terms are so mutually exclusive. The notion of wonder seems to be something that once united them, and can still do so."
Contemplating the immensity and strangeness of the universe could produce the same feeling of sublime terror that Coleridge strove for in "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" or that Wordsworth evokes in parts of his autobiographical epic "The Prelude." In Keats' sonnet "On First Looking Into Chapman's Homer," the poet compares his feeling of literary discovery with that of "some watcher of the skies/ When a new planet swims into his ken"; as Holmes explains, this was an allusion to Herschel's discovery of the planet Uranus in 1781, one of the stories told at length in The Age of Wonder.
At the same time, the growing fame of individual scientists made them seem larger-than-life, almost superhuman, like the Romantic persona cultivated by Lord Byron. The glamour of exploration was unmistakable: Joseph Banks, who returned from Tahiti with tales of erotic adventure, and Mungo Park, who spent two years charting the course of the Niger River, were objects of fascination on their return to England. (Banks stayed home and spent a long career as president of the Royal Society; Park returned to Africa and disappeared.) Humphry Davy's glamour was of a different kind. Alone in his laboratory, he penetrated the deepest secrets of nature, isolating the elements of sodium, iodine, and chlorine for the first time. His discoveries, his useful inventions (including a safety lamp for coal miners), and his brilliant popular lectures made him a celebrity and a social lion—he won a knighthood and a rich wife, although, as Holmes shows, neither made him happy.
Davy was also an accomplished poet who insisted on the close relationship between scientific and artistic ways of seeing. "The perception of truth is almost always as simple a feeling as the perception of beauty," he wrote, "and the genius of Newton, of Shakespeare, of Michael Angelo, and of Handel, are not very remote in character from each other. Imagination, as well as reason, is necessary to perfection in the philosophic mind." It is the kind of observation one might expect from the polymath Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Davy's close friend. In a letter to Davy in 1800, Coleridge speculated on the affinity between science and poetry: "[B]eing necessarily performed with the passion of Hope," the poet believed, science "was poetical."












Is It More Important for Your Turkey To Be Organic or Local?
Why Gift Cards Are a Terrible Gift
Is Sarah Palin's Approval Rating Really as High as Barack Obama's?
Justice Scalia's Most Eccentric Habits
Adam Lambert's Refreshing Non-Apology on the CBS Early Show
Democrats Have a Lot To Be Thankful For
While the survival of the species may have been taken for granted in the past, it was always an illusion. Natural climate change, comets, plagues, and gamma ray bursts have always threatened to sterilize the globe. They were just ignorant and powerless against these threats. Ignorance was bliss, I suppose.
In any case, I don't think that the survival of the species is the primary variety of hope that people are invested in. That's an abstract goal indeed. The hope people have sought through the ages, and that science has, at least in the West significantly supplied, is the hope of a life that is in some measure less nasty, brutish, and short than the one that Stingy Nature offers us. The survival of one's self and one's family was far less certain in the past than it is now, at least in the West. I have not once worried, on coming home from work, that I would find my entire family dead of Yellow Fever, or that we would starve from a lack of rain, or that my broken bone would become infected and kill me, to say nothing of simple comfort, or the Romantic authors I can read on my Kindle. How many of those fine Romantic voices died, or watched their children die, of some scourge that we have all but forgotten now? The Good Old Days were indeed terrible [1], and it is science alone that we have to thank for that improvement.
What's more, I do not really believe the premise that the survival of the species is imperiled by technology, by nuclear war, by global warming. What is in peril is the sweet life we've constructed for ourselves. Scientific power imperils scientific society. What we fear and dread, and rightly so, is a return to the old days when we were powerless against Nature's whims. It is civilization we fear for, not the species. Some miserable wretches will scratch out a living somewhere no matter what happens, just as they did 10,000 years ago before that big scientific spark, agriculture, freed us to work on improving our lives, freed us to work on literature, to write Walden, or Frankenstein, rather than spending our days in a daily struggle to live to see the next day. It is this civilization that frees us to look beyond mere survival that is both created, and imperiled, by science. Science is the one and only double edged sword of hope we have, or have ever had.
-- kolmokorov
(To reply, click here)