A new favorite

Like I say with all my favorite writers – and like how I superlatize everything that I’ve just discovered I like – Natalie Angier is the most beautiful writer in the world! But not only beautiful, thoughtful, provocative, and so interesting, the type of writing that always pulls you in.

In her latest article, “Curriculum Designed to Unite Art and Science,” one might first be tempted to think it an example of the type of piece that Gene Weingarten talks about here, in “Gene Voted Sexiest Man Alive.” But perhaps partly because it’s me, but definitely also because of Angier herself, the story was indeed, fascinating.

The confluence of the humanities and sciences, whose perfect unity I first discovered in science journalism a year and a half ago, is being discussed on a grander scale than that, in front of the masses! That is, the “masses” being the mass of New York Times Science Times readers. And it is being conveyed by the words of one of my highest brethren. Unlike me, Angier is not so vain as to discuss science journalism (or more importantly, not so imprudent; I’m sure she does not want to reveal the secret that this is the perfect profession for people whose mission is the uniting of science and the humanities; imagine the danger of having the whole world wanting to be you! They should be reading you. One must keep the masses – er, readers – in their proper place) (to be clear, I’m kidding). Instead, she talks about a new academic curriculum at Binghamton University of New York. It’s called the New Humanities. To me it amounts to a Renaissance education, an aspiration for the kinds of fusion, or pre-fragmentation, thinking that went on in old French salons.

Unlike my major in college, which simply joined physical engineering studies with social engineering studies (science, economics, and policy) – the New Humanities reaches into the extremes of humanistic and scientific thinking. And perhaps that’s the biggest difference: it does not teach you a discipline of knowledge, per se, but many ways of thinking.

There is hope yet, to witness that such discussions about the nature of knowledge and different ways of knowing, are occurring in a newspaper. Hope for the people and for society, but, more importantly, for newspapers. (Ha, just kidding. But only partly.)

Other beautiful articles by Angier include this one, on Walruses, of all things.

Next to read, thanks to Google:
From Edge: MY GOD PROBLEM

And here is the rest of it.