I failed badly at science at school, in large part because I was really good at English, History etc and there was that binary split between the sciences and the humanities. I knew I’d end up doing “the humanities” at some point so I felt less invested in “the sciences”.
But actually, I was interested and would probably have been good at them if encouraged. I followed biology with ease amd enthusiasm right up til we got to the heart, which then became a plumbing diagram and I fell behind. Much later, on learning that the heart is a spiral, I had a flashback to that moment in biology class when I stopped learning and I realised it was because the way the heart was understood and taught back then was absurdly limited and in some ways wrong. Something instinctive in me had gone “nope” and shut down.
Physics excited me and occupied my imagination but the nuts and bolts of it (the rules and equations) bored me rigid, in large part because I’m discalculic and really struggle with numbers. My teacher always said I was bright but didn’t apply myself. I was asking smart-arse questions about black holes and quantum weirdness but I didn’t see the point of knowing how bouancy works
Maths was a painful chore. I have come to realise that if I really concentrate and apply myself, by a combination of clumsy sums on paper, convoluted work with a calculator, crib notes to remind me of the formulae and the knowledge that others find it much less confusing then I do, I can work through arithmetic. But this was always going to get in the way of chemistry and physics, and wasn’t recognised at school, so I floundered.
Chemistry was like a glass castle I could never find my way into. I could see all these fascinating structures and shapes inside but because I couldn’t get inside the castle, I couldn’t walk around the structures and get any sense of perspective, context, how they related to one another etc. I got a risible 2% on my O level mock and was asked to drop the subject, which was a relief to all concerned. I did manage to cause a few contained explosions in the lab though, which increased my standing in the school.
Once I left school, I pretty much forgot about science altogether.
But then I started picking up copies of New Scientist and reading them cover to cover, and doing the “did you know.... listen to this...” stuff, and my boyfriend bought me a subscription, which I still have now (even though it’s not as good as it was).
And in my early forties I went to university to do a BSc. in health sciences. Having no science qualifications, I had to do the foundation course, which was essentially one year to bring me up to A level standard in maths physics biology and chemistry. I was scared, but very motivated and utterly committed. And I got top marks in all subjects.
I remember a conversation I had with the chemistry teacher, about half way through the first semester, that went something like this:
- I feel as if I’m on the verge of understanding chemistry, as a topic and in the round, as a concept, but I realise I’m actually a long way off from that, and the more I learn the less I understand the bigger picture. I’m feeling quite lost.
- What is it that would help you, do you think?
- Not sure... I think I want to ask some particular questions about chemistry and how it works, and that might help me.
- Okay, what are the questions you'd like to ask?
- I don’t know! I think that’s the problem: I’m not even sure what questions to ask in order to get to the answer want.
- Okay, well wait until the end of the course and I think you’ll have a better idea of the questions you need to be asking...
And then in the last week of the year, right before the final exams, towards the end of the lecture, he said “Sheila, do you now have a better idea of the questions you’d like to ask?” and I did, because he was such a good teacher. But I also realised that I am not a chemist by nature, despite finding it fascinating.
I can get a handle on it while studying it, and I got good results in exams and all my lab work was good. But I don’t understand it instinctively as I do with biology, and certainly not well enough to explain it to anyone else. I did have some wonderful “aha!” moments, especially with valency and molarity, really basic stuff which at least make me feel that I’m not completely illiterate in these fundamental areas.
I understand organic chemistry, and biochemistry enough to know things like how pH buffering works in the body, how plant compounds interact with human physiology etc. I think I have a competance here that is above average.
I know what sesqueterpines are and the physiological effects they have, shit like that. I do know enough chemistry to understand pharmacognosy and pharmacology. At least enough to know how to look stuff up and work through a paper.
When the BSc. started, right from the start I was looking forward to doing my dissertation. It was a research university and because it was an honours degree, we had to do original research. Other students were opting for surveys, qualitative studies etc. but I knew I wanted to do a lab based project, and I did. I was praised by the faculty for my synthesis, and I had to go to other universities to access equipment and expertise. It was really exciting, and I hope one day to be able to follow up on that as a post grad.
However, statistics is a stubborn blank for me, and I know it. I think that’s because of the discalcula. But at least I do know that I don’t have a great handle on statistics, so I have to seek out support, input, reliable sources for explanation and ask for help unravelling it all. Like, when I was deciding what treatment to accept for cancer, I looked at the stats and asked for help, and went back the oncologist and discussed it with him and he admitted that yes, the benefits were not as great as he had originally suggested. So I knew enough to question what he was saying, but not enough to work it out for myself; I knew enough to be able to pursue my queries and have a conversation, but only with support from other places.
Botany was easy for me because it was so interesting. Having a deep interest in plants, learning the names was just adding detail to my own observations. And the functions are so similar to physiological functions in biology that it was dead easy for me to get my head around how plants breathe and move nutrients around.
Ecology was so easy as to be boring. It was all so obvious and self evident, apart from the maths. I can’t think of a single “aha!” moment I had studying ecology. Perhaps because I’d had an excellent geography teacher at school, who had covered a lot of ecology in her lessons.
I had to pass exams in health sciences to the same level as a doctor, and I did really well. I now teach myself, at entry level and at university level, so I feel that a have a good understanding of those topics. And I love science enough to keep looking for new knowledge and keep pressing on with my leanring.
For my dissertation, I needed to use some higher maths,as well as a bunch of other stuff that necessitated deep study, and for the duration of that project I felt that my brain was working at some higher level. I neglected non-cerebral duties like eating, brushing my hair, housechores, and it was an extraordinary experience. My partner at that time would bring me a sarnie and a cuppa and leave them on my desk and I’d not notice. I went directly from desk to bed, fall into dreams of what I’d been working on, and immediately on waking I’d go back to my desk. I resented the time it took to go pee.
Afterwards I realised why fewer women than men get to work like this: not because we can’t or don’t want to, but because we don’t get supported by our partners to work exclusively on the project in the way that men do.
I love science, and I love study. I love the scientific endeavour, I think it’s one of our greatest human achievements. I think it’s as important to know about Faraday and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the laws of thermodynamics and photosynthesis as it is to know about Shakespeare and events leading up to the worlds wars.
What I feel really uncomfortable with is the way science is often invoked as a kind of faith based belief system, employed to stymie discussion and debate. Science is about asking questions, and too often it’s used as a tool to shut down debate.
There are really important lacunae in our understanding (for instances,just for starters, as mentioned above, the problems with parallel lines... or wtf is going on with the double-slit experiment... the hard problem of consciousness... etc... but also at the more local level too) and I find it frustrating that there’s is this weird general belief that science knows everything.
All the real scientists I’ve ever encountered are filled with uncertainty, doubts, questions, curiosity... but I see a lot of stubborn insistence and certainty amongst those who stifle debate with declarations such as “the science tells us...science says... that’s not scientific...”
tl;dr
I love science, I’m good at some of it, poor at other bits. I don’t like it when people’s say “yeah but science” to shut down debate.
