"Looking for a Mirror", an opinion by journalist and author Lee Billings, is a peculiar mix of science education and sentimental poetry. Billings, who has written an entire book on the subject, discusses our hunt for Earth-like planets in the universe in this article. He begins with the inspiration of the search, the Apollo 8 crew's view of the Earth as a tiny, both remarkable and unremarkable sphere suspended in space. Most of the article speaks of our next step in the journey, basic location of planets akin to Earth in the immediately observable universe. The entire subject is deepened by Billings' effortless transitions from purely informational text to purely emotional prose, expressing the duality of this quest: scientific intrigue mixed with loneliness-fueled exploration.
The more scientific of Billings' essay is more-or-less standard to articles dealing with technology; it sufficiently and methodically explains uncommon phenomena and defines any outlandish terms with straightforward words. Given the relative intelligence of his audience -- readers of the New York Times, and a science selection, no less -- Billings simply does not have a lot of explaining to do. Many of his readers either already have a technical understanding of his subject or can infer the specifics given the premise. So, what Billings leaves out in topics, he makes up for in vividness of explanation: "By measuring how light interacts with molecules in a planet’s atmosphere, a world can be surveyed for “biosignature” gases such as oxygen and methane, allowing scientists to sniff out the breath of life at interstellar distances." Rather than plainly stating that scientists can predict atmospheric composition based on light behavior, Billings goes deeper, using an extended metaphor to spruce his description up.
But this rhetoric does not even compare to his more poetic paragraphs. Whenever a scientific method is explained objectively, Billings chooses to describe it in a subjective way. He often weaves the objective and subjective together: "A small rocky planet is a dim mote of dust lost in the glare from a thermonuclear fireball we call a star. For every photon of planetary light that goes into making a picture, 10 billion stellar photons must first be filtered out; remarkably, researchers have already devised several ways to do this." This technique beautifully captures the dichotomy that drives this planet-identifying project. Throughout the essay, he implies the source of the motivation to find "mirror Earths": scientific capability and curiosity meets with human motivation and sentimentality. For truly, if we did not feel a sense of belonging to our own planet, why would we use up its precious resources in the quest for its brethren?
The more scientific of Billings' essay is more-or-less standard to articles dealing with technology; it sufficiently and methodically explains uncommon phenomena and defines any outlandish terms with straightforward words. Given the relative intelligence of his audience -- readers of the New York Times, and a science selection, no less -- Billings simply does not have a lot of explaining to do. Many of his readers either already have a technical understanding of his subject or can infer the specifics given the premise. So, what Billings leaves out in topics, he makes up for in vividness of explanation: "By measuring how light interacts with molecules in a planet’s atmosphere, a world can be surveyed for “biosignature” gases such as oxygen and methane, allowing scientists to sniff out the breath of life at interstellar distances." Rather than plainly stating that scientists can predict atmospheric composition based on light behavior, Billings goes deeper, using an extended metaphor to spruce his description up.
But this rhetoric does not even compare to his more poetic paragraphs. Whenever a scientific method is explained objectively, Billings chooses to describe it in a subjective way. He often weaves the objective and subjective together: "A small rocky planet is a dim mote of dust lost in the glare from a thermonuclear fireball we call a star. For every photon of planetary light that goes into making a picture, 10 billion stellar photons must first be filtered out; remarkably, researchers have already devised several ways to do this." This technique beautifully captures the dichotomy that drives this planet-identifying project. Throughout the essay, he implies the source of the motivation to find "mirror Earths": scientific capability and curiosity meets with human motivation and sentimentality. For truly, if we did not feel a sense of belonging to our own planet, why would we use up its precious resources in the quest for its brethren?
No comments:
Post a Comment