Examination on The Study of John M. Barry on The Challenges of Influenza in 1918

John M. Barry articulates the struggles of fighting influenza in 1918 through the scopes of scientific research in his book The Great Influenza. In a passage of Barry’s book, he characterizes scientific research in terms of the intricate threading of antipodean ideas; certainty vs. uncertainty, known vs. unknown, and concrete vs. conceptual that serve as its foundation and parallels scientists to frontiersmen and miners in an attempt to convince the reader that science is more laborious and arduous than previously believed.

.Scientific research exists on the fine periphery separating certainty and uncertainty, known and unknown, and concrete and conceptual; these theories often clash and create the paradoxical basis of scientific research.These negating ideas are manipulated by Barry to educate the reader about the true complex aspect of science, rather than the layman understanding By defining certainty as a concept that humans rely on and uncertainty as a restriction causing people to be cautious and “tentative,” Barry emphasizes the difference between the strength in certainty and the weakness in uncertainty. The author first introduces the conflicting ideas and then reveals that, though, science exists on the boundary it is more a permeable wall because science is an entanglement of all of the opposites. By expressing that the weakness of uncertainty is actually a “strength deeper than physical courage,” and that this courage is the courage to “accept--indeed, embrace--uncertainty,” Barry implies that scientists go beyond the untroublesome life of certainty and “venture into the unknown”- which is full of doubt- in order to test their theories until it can be certain. This paradox of needing to be in the unknown to discover the known is the core value of science. If everything in the world was known, there would be no need to study the world through observations and experiment--which is the most basic definition of science. Instead, the discomfort of the unknown drives scientists to ponder and develop theories about the conceptual world. Barry alludes to Alice in Wonderland to complete his illustration. As fantastical as the world of young Alice is science is the same; science must wander “through the looking glass into a world that seems entirely different,” to bring order to the world. The double entendre of the looking glass is a contrast in itself. On one side the looking glass resembles the glass of a microscope and the organization of the measurable, observable, concrete, pragmatic world and in contrast the looking glass also alludes to the chaotic, theoretical, and abstract aspect of science. The difficult task of a scientist is “to precipitate an order out of chaos, to create form, structure, and direction.” Science can be drawn to the Asian value of Yin and Yang. Though it is composed of complete opposites, science relies on each of conflict to exist and live in a delicate balance. As Barry illustrates, this balance is the where scientific research resides and grows in.

Barry acknowledges the analytical, innovative, and courageous characteristics of frontiersmen and miners and compares these occupations to the work of a scientist with rhetorical questioning and extended metaphors. By presenting a series of rhetorical questioning that mimic the thought process of deciding between the use of either a shovel, pick, or stick of dynamite in a hypothetical scenario, Barry suggests that scientific research is as analytical as an excavator. Scientists must evaluate all possible options and each of their outcomes; every context is different. The rhetorical questions serve two purposes; the first is to develop the diagnostic quality of science and the second is to stress the application of the analysis with innovation. The acknowledgment of the risk of the dynamite destroying the information and of the presence of the stream are masterfully proposed in the same chronology as the thought process of any miner. By parodying this deliberation, Barry suggests that the true innovation is knowing how to work around challenges and construct a solution as a miner constantly does. These challenges include the times when a scientist encounters a novel situation. By having the wilderness represent the unknown that a scientist faces, Barry creates an extended metaphor that compares scientists to frontiersmen who must be courageous as they “probe” in a land “where they know almost nothing” and their instruments for discovery “do not exist.” All of these qualities express scientific research as elevated above simple math and science, but rather convey the depth and significance of scientists’ work.

Barry’s published account communicates the hardships of scientific research and the contradictions that science intricately molds together to investigate the questions of the world and yield and answer. Whether it be the battle between known and unknown, certainty and uncertainty, concrete and abstract or the similarities to pioneers of the new world or archaeologists of the old world, all these traits are essential to the complicated field of science.

John M. Barry expresses the struggles of fighting influenza in 1918 through the scopes of scientific research in his book The Great Influenza. In a passage of Barry’s book, he characterizes scientific research in terms of the intricate threading of antipodean ideas-certainty vs. uncertainty, known vs. unknown, and pragmatic vs. conceptual-that serve as its foundation and parallels scientists to frontiersmen and miners in an attempt to convince the reader of .

Scientific research exists on the fine periphery separating certainty and uncertainty, known and unknown, and pragmatic and conceptual; these theories often clash and create the paradoxical basis of scientific research.These negating ideas are manipulated by Barry to educate the reader about the true complex aspect of science, rather than the layman understanding. By defining certainty as a concept that humans rely on and uncertainty as a restriction causing people to be cautious and “tentative,” Barry emphasizes the difference between the strength in certainty and the weakness in uncertainty. Barry elevates the discussion of science by introducing the complexity of its infrastructure. Scientists are forced to ignore the untroublesome life of certainty and gain the courage to “accept--indeed, embrace--uncertainty.” This uncomfortable feeling of ignoring society's law to be certain is one of the main characteristics of scientific research. Discomfort is not exclusive to certainty and uncertainty; it is present in the contrasts of known and unknown.