This is my version of an analogy that has been kicked around for some time.

Suppose you go to the art museum to look at your favorite painting. (For me it would be a certain piece by Umberto Boccioni. If you don't have a favorite painting... discover art. It's the best.) You bring a friend. The two of you walk over to your favorite painting and you begin to talk to your friend about the painting, about why you love it, why it moves you. You talk about the interplay of the colors, the work in motion, the artist's use of texture, perspective and form. You talk about its elegance, its emotion. You talk about everything that to you imparts value.

But as you are saying those things you are interrupted by a man. He walks over to you and says "Now listen. I heard what you're saying and it's not true. That painting, sir, is a 19 by 25." The man is a framemaker. He is defining the painting by its dimensions of height and width.

"Oh, I'm sure it is," you reply. "I'm sure you're right. But I was just commenting to my friend about what gives the meaning to the painting for me. See the way the light plays off of the canvas, the way the image changes as you walk around the room."

The framemaker pulls out his measuring tape. He walks over to the painting and measures it. He walks back over to you and smiles. "There. It's just like I told you. This painting is a 19 by 25."

Again you try to explain that you don't dispute either the accuracy of his measurement or the importance of his measuring. You simply want to explain that there is more going on, things that cannot be measured, things that don't fit within his criteria for measurement. You try to explain that it is an important point, because it is precisely the things that he is ignoring that give the painting value and meaning.

He persists. "That painting is a 19 by 25. It is only a 19 by 25. It is nothing more or less than an 19 by 25. If you disagree, you not only reject frames completely, you also reject logic and reason. You reject the PRODUCTS of logic and reason. You're probably just another of those religious nutcases."

That's the position I and many others find ourselves in. Science and its disciples like Mr. Wilson or Daniel Dennett insist on defining the entirety of human experience by the criteria that they find valuable, and by no other. They heap disrespect on those who think otherwise. They say that those who disagree that science should be considered the end all and be all of human existence are charlatans, religious nuts or relativists who not only reject their point of view, but science and reason in full.

I admire and respect the work done by scientists but I confess to a deep and growing unease with the character of the scientifict project. Science is a powerful and incredibly important tool that we use to better our understanding of reality. But it is not reality. It is not True with a capital T. I need science; painting need frams. But I refuse to concede that anything outside of the scientific view is inherently wrong, insubstantial, and unworthy. I believe that the things that are truly of value and meaning in our lives are precisely those things that fall outside of science.

And, no, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to purchase penicilin or work on a computer. Arguing that philosophy of science has lost its way is not a rejection of the tool of science or its products. Of course scientific progress is important. Of course I reap its benefits. I refuse to bend down and worship.

It does not insult science to say that it can not and will not ever contain the sum of the universe. You can't criticize something for not performing a task it is not meant to do. Science is a point of view, created by human beings, and is an incredibly powerful one. But its not my end. Its not the grail. I celebrate science for answering the questions that it does. But I can't be satisfied with it because it will never answer the questions that I truly want answered. Mr. Wilson has everything figured out, except how to live.

It's hard for me to have sympathy for an overachievement. Overachievement, I'm certain, is less the product of actual achievement and more the product of having the family situation and money necessary to excel. The lie of equal opportunity is the myth from which all American myths spring. I mean, look at your dilemma now. I'm sure it sucks. Being poor, uneducated and stuck and having none of the opportunities you have is much, much worse. Perhaps you should take the time to take stock of how priveleged and spoiled you are rather than thinking about how good you are at everything.

But if you want a little advice-- don't go to grad school. Grad school is not a place to find yourself. It's not a place to explore your interests. You don't go to decide what exactly you want to go. Many people going into grad school know exactly what branch of their field they want to go into, with great specificity-- down to who the want to work with, which professor they want as their advisor, which journal article they want to write first, etc. If you get into a doctoral program and go not knowing even what field you are interested in, you will waste money (yours or the schools), get frustrated, and deprive someone more worthy of a space (which are a very valuable and rare resource.)

If you are sure grad school is for you, take the time before you apply anywhere to decide what exactly you want to do. Going in not sure if you are into creative writing or business or whatever else is a recipe for disaster.