This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/25/science-v-humanities-a-misguided-debate
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Science v humanities a misguided debate | |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| With regard to David Kynaston’s recent letter (22 November) in which he claims that “science can learn far more from the humanities than the other way round”, this exemplifies a misunderstanding of what CP Snow was saying. Yes, he was pointing out that there are two cultures, but he did not believe this was a good thing. He also reported that, while in the company of scientists he would expect them to have a reasonable knowledge of, say, the works of Shakespeare, in the company of those from the humanities he would hardly ever obtain an understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. | With regard to David Kynaston’s recent letter (22 November) in which he claims that “science can learn far more from the humanities than the other way round”, this exemplifies a misunderstanding of what CP Snow was saying. Yes, he was pointing out that there are two cultures, but he did not believe this was a good thing. He also reported that, while in the company of scientists he would expect them to have a reasonable knowledge of, say, the works of Shakespeare, in the company of those from the humanities he would hardly ever obtain an understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. |
| Unfortunately, the debate will continue along its misguided path. Some years back, I attended a meeting with a high-ranking civil servant with a background in the humanities who asked the scientists in attendance whether government should stop financing science and let others (eg the US) do it instead. The natural response was that this would lead to the UK being very poor technologically and disadvantaged in terms of the translation of research into business. More importantly, however, it missed the important point that the culture of our country is heavily influenced by science and technology, viz Newton, Bacon, Boyle, Hooke, Darwin and Wallace, the Hunter brothers, Rutherford, Sanger and so on...Professor Bernard MoxhamCardiff | Unfortunately, the debate will continue along its misguided path. Some years back, I attended a meeting with a high-ranking civil servant with a background in the humanities who asked the scientists in attendance whether government should stop financing science and let others (eg the US) do it instead. The natural response was that this would lead to the UK being very poor technologically and disadvantaged in terms of the translation of research into business. More importantly, however, it missed the important point that the culture of our country is heavily influenced by science and technology, viz Newton, Bacon, Boyle, Hooke, Darwin and Wallace, the Hunter brothers, Rutherford, Sanger and so on...Professor Bernard MoxhamCardiff |
| • The sciences may indeed help remind us that the universe doesn’t revolve around us, but can they care about that knowledge? It’s the humanities that give us the values that enable us to make some sense of what we’re doing here, including the desire to find out more about how the universe operates. Surely we need both an understanding of the facts of life and how the cosmos function, as well as what adds meaning and purpose to our awareness of being alive, conscious, and human. Otherwise, what is the point of us simply being around?Yair KleinLondon | • The sciences may indeed help remind us that the universe doesn’t revolve around us, but can they care about that knowledge? It’s the humanities that give us the values that enable us to make some sense of what we’re doing here, including the desire to find out more about how the universe operates. Surely we need both an understanding of the facts of life and how the cosmos function, as well as what adds meaning and purpose to our awareness of being alive, conscious, and human. Otherwise, what is the point of us simply being around?Yair KleinLondon |
| • David William Evans (Letters, 24 November) says we should not imagine that the universe revolves around us. Ludwig Wittgenstein, who had a few good ideas in his time, once said that, although you could persuade someone who had thitherto thought the sun went round the Earth that the opposite was true, it would still be right for that person to think of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.Michael BulleyChalon-sur-Saône, France | • David William Evans (Letters, 24 November) says we should not imagine that the universe revolves around us. Ludwig Wittgenstein, who had a few good ideas in his time, once said that, although you could persuade someone who had thitherto thought the sun went round the Earth that the opposite was true, it would still be right for that person to think of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.Michael BulleyChalon-sur-Saône, France |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |