On Field Dyanmics

Right now, I’m reading a book called, The Age of Entanglement by Louisa Gilder, which discusses the evolution of quantum theory during the 20th century. If you’re at all interested in physics, I’d recommend it. But what makes it relevant to this discussion is the picture it paints of the evolution of ideas within the field of quantum mechanics. This book reveals that, during this time, there was very little seminal knowledge that major physicists would agree on. In fact, to me, the most fascinating parts of the book deal with the way that Einstein and Bohr disagreed and argued about some of the most fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics for their entire careers. They spent decades arguing about things like whether matter was comprised of particles or waves or whether you could definitively measure the speed and position of quanta simultaneously.

What really tied the field together during the 20th century seems instead to be a shared purpose, a set of questions that all of these really smart people investigated and debated rigorously—questions like, what are the most fundamental aspects of the natural world and how do they come together to create the reality that we are familiar with.

I think the same thing is true of the field of Composition and Rhetoric. (If you're wondering why I'm writing this, you might take a look at recent WPA-L posts.) We have some shared purposes, a shared set of questions: How do experienced writers approach the complex tasks involved in composing? How does one communicate effectively using writing? How best can writing be taught to novice writers? Etc. The answers to the questions are constantly evolving as older ideas are challenged or synthesized to create better answers and as newer ideas become popular within the context of heated debates and arguments like this one.

I have more to say about this--especially about the connection between these ideas and G&B's TS/IS--but it's still sort of foggy, thus the semi-public airing of my opinion. More to come, maybe.