October 27, 2006
THE EXPANDING THIRD CULTURE
John Brockman in Edge:
Many people, even many scientists, have a narrow view of science as controlled, replicated experiments performed in the laboratory—and as consisting quintessentially of physics, chemistry, and molecular biology.
The essence of science is conveyed by its Latin etymology: scientia, meaning knowledge. The scientific method is simply that body of practices best suited for obtaining reliable knowledge. The practices vary among fields: the controlled laboratory experiment is possible in molecular biology, physics, and chemistry, but it is either impossible, immoral, or illegal in many other fields customarily considered sciences, including all of the historical sciences: astronomy, epidemiology, evolutionary biology, most of the earth sciences, and paleontology.Just as science—that is, reliable methods for obtaining knowledge—has encroached on areas formerly considered to belong to the humanities (such as psychology), science is also encroaching on the social sciences, especially economics, geography, history, and political science. Humanities scholars and historians who spurn it condemn themselves to second-rate status and produce unreliable results. But this doesn't have to be the case. What can we do about this situation? We can start by asking a question.
Here is my question, the question I am asking myself, a question we can ask each other:Why does society benefit from an accurate representation of knowledge?
More here.
Posted by Azra Raza at 06:43 AM | Permalink
Comments
sheesh what scientistic drivel
jk, but seriously, she needed some examples, or at least one, to demonstrate
A)just what specifically she is talking about (beginning with who some of these scientific humanists she refers to even are), and
B)other than saying that they "think like scientists," what makes this approach distinctive?
Posted by: Nathaniel Frentz | Oct 27, 2006 10:20:26 AM
John Brockman's article is the typical elitist BS that we have come to expect from the Edge.
"There are encouraging signs that the third culture now includes scholars in the humanities who think the way scientists do." New? Nope. Careful observation, logical thinking, and sharp, incisive writing are as old as the hills. There are good and bad practitioners of these arts in any field, not just in the hard sciences.
"scientists are gaining a broader understanding about the import of their own work through interactions with artists."Again, nothing new here. Fruitful interaction between artists and scientists is as old as the hills. e.g., Leonardo Da Vinci, 3quarksdaily, etc.
" "They don't know, they just don't know." To which might be added that a blissful state of ignorance is considered a credential in this world. Why else would reputable publications allow reviewers, ignorant in the sciences, to write about books by scientists? " I think publishers are not ignorant of the importance of science. I see fine (and not so fine) popular science books being published all the time. I do agree coverage of science in the press is very often quite poor. An interesting book related to this is "Embargoed Science" by Vincent Kiernan.
"His approach was to seek out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask each other the questions they are asking themselves." Hey, what if I want to contribute my opinion and I'm not in your room? Sounds like the Edge website, which doesn't post reader comments. The Edge society doesn't understand the real revolution of our time, the Internet. The internet prefers democracy to aristocracy. Try writing Wikipedia's 1.5 million articles with your small roomful of "sophisticated minds" (by which, I'm afraid, you mean pretentious aristocrats).
Posted by: rrtucci | Oct 27, 2006 5:07:57 PM
The question you posed brought to mind another question I've often pondered: why is the logical way necessarily a good path of thought to follow?
Posted by: 11 | Oct 28, 2006 1:48:02 AM
Post a comment