We Must Accept; but how?

"...A book that takes on such an abstract subject with the intention of emphasizing the science, not the scientific personalities or the personal anecdotes, might cater to an even smaller audience."

Who would honestly want to read the Almanac? It would appear to be insane to pick up a book with facts and call it a "novel". Brian Greene is a famous physicist in the world of theoretical physics who understands the important connection between the appeal for learning, and the appeal for factual data. In the preface to his novel The Elegant Universe; he sets up the reader with, what appears to be, an honest remark: "This book will not appeal to everyone." (note: not actual quote from book)

After analyzing the first section, I have come to conclude other meanings for why he has used this quoted phrase. In order for you understand what this quote means to me, I must first inform you of its proper context. The page is roughly an introduction to why he wrote the book, how he did it, and to get the reader in a mindset that prepares them for the read ahead. He goes on to say that he was dedicated to writing the book regardless of its social appeal; that he would be satisfied if, "[He] reached one person,...that it would be enough." Of course the word "enough" means enough reason behind his purpose. So from the start we are made to believe that he intends to portray the Science as accurately as possible, regardless of its general appeal to society.

Science is the philosophy of deducing knowledge from your senses; Empiricism. Its hilariously ironic to call Theoretical Physics a form of Science because "theoretical" implies we haven't experienced it yet. Of course if Brian Greene came out and said, "This is technically not Science, but it does use the same process to achieve equally valid conclusions," his book and life's work would lose the potency of its meaning, especially in the hands of the layman. A book is written for society. If the intention of the book is to educate society with your knowledge, you appeal to the bias of the society. This is why Aristotle included the gods in Sophocles; that everyone would derive similar connections and meaning and use that connection to embrace Aristotle's ideas. So when Greene says this quote, and it implies that he is writing something similar to an Almanac, we assume that (because he his absolutely honest in this intention) we are receiving his facts with confidence; that they are accepted as true, and can be used as knowledge.

Today's society is infatuated with Empiricism; that is our bias. If Greene intends to write a novel about his subject, he must appeal to that bias; which he has done. He has underlined his preface with the idea that his knowledge is acceptable as Empirical knowledge. This underlying idea influences our intuition about his work; that we must strive to understand it rather than revoke it. This is brilliant because he has setup the reader's attitude with a bias towards the information he is presenting; we are no longer open minded about the subject matter. Again, there's irony in a Scientific novel proving itself to an Empirical audience. If we accept Science as true because we are Empirical, it would be redundant to write a novel proving what we already believe. Yet, he chooses to write a novel; a way through which we can accept his ideas as true, versus an almanac; just the result.

When we reconsider the irony of Theoretical Physics as a Science, we recall that there is a small disconnect between the two. Greene in this manner is no longer just proving the validity of his work, he's also trying to bridge that small gap between his field of study, and Science. I would love to go into detail regarding the various reasons as to why he might be doing that, but from here on I will keep my bias in perspective and continue to learn form what the novel offers.