Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Consilience - the Unity of Knowledge
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 3 of 27 (517060)
07-29-2009 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
07-28-2009 7:55 PM


Do you give out sticky stars?
E.O. Wilson writes:
"What is the relation between science and the humanities, and how is it important for human welfare?"
First of all, I'm afraid to answer the question because I hate being wrong and getting all embarrassed 'n stuff.
But, I'm going to put my big-boy panties on today (now with batman symbols!) and give this a try:
quote:
Science helps society learn about the universe and be very confident in the answers received.
The humanities helps society learn about themselves. Confidence in such things can vary.
The relation between them is obvious (they both help society learn) and subtle (humanities can create questions that science can focus on to gain more confidence of certain answers in certain areas).
The relation is important for human welfare because it is a source of knowledge and therefore growth and hopefully prosperity.
Disclaimer: although I understand what "science" is, the term "humanities" isn't one so clearly defined in my vocabulary. I take it to mean "those aspects of philosophy, sociology and psychology that are not already governed by science."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2009 7:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2009 4:46 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 10 of 27 (517201)
07-30-2009 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
07-29-2009 4:46 PM


Uh oh.. my ignorance is showing
RAZD writes:
But to conceive of a human able to encompass all knowledge is daunting image, so it would have to be done as a cultural group of connected individuals, with all the flaws in conceptualization and understanding that this entails.
Thanks for that. I have to admit that I didn't quite know what the word "consilience" meant, and I was too lazy to go and look it up. I mean, c'mon... it would have taken at least 40 seconds. Not to mention stopping my hand from typing and having to reach for my mouse. That was just too much for me
So you're saying that each informs the other, one in direction and one in content?
Yes. I see humanities as "thought experiments through structured induction." That is, just a fancy way of saying "a best guess." In contrast to science, there is nothing to test or verify an "idea" from the humanities. Once there is... it beomes science.
For my mind, it seems that humanities answer questions not open to science, questions from philosophy, politics, culture, the big whys, filling an emotional void\vacancy in science.
I almost agree.
I would say that humanities provides an answer to questions not open to science (question that are untestable).
Where science provides the answer (upon repeatable verification) to questions that are testable.
The humanities cannot ever be more than "a best guess" because there's nothing to verify or test the answer against. It takes on the realm of the subjective, which (by it's very nature) is going to be different for different people. To think that it's even possible to get *the* answer from such a subjective pool of information is just a bit silly, to me. However, what is possible is to lead certain subjective information into a corner that becomes testable... then objective science can take over and give us "the" answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2009 4:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 08-02-2009 11:43 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 23 by petrophysics1, posted 08-18-2009 11:44 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 11 of 27 (517202)
07-30-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by slevesque
07-30-2009 1:46 AM


'Will' or 'can'?
slevesque writes:
Science tells us what IS. Humanities tells us what OUGHT TO BE.
I agree with the broad, general sense of this statement. Personally, I'd add something in like "Humanities tells us what we think OUGHT TO BE."
That is, I think it's important to clarify that the humanities study questions that are untestable. Therefore, it's only honest to accept that our answers to such things are more aligned to "best guesses" then "definitive answers."
As per your example:
Science won't be able to say if I should be executed or kept alive. Humanities will
I agree that science isn't able to say if you should be executed or not.
I do not agree that the humanities "will" be able to tell you a completely correct answer about the question, though.
I agree that the humanities will give us our social feelings.. but where that answer is "actually correct" or whatever... is a matter of subjective opinion. It may very well be that a specific answer is not possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by slevesque, posted 07-30-2009 1:46 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by slevesque, posted 07-30-2009 11:52 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 12 of 27 (517204)
07-30-2009 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Straggler
07-30-2009 8:46 AM


Re: CP Snow - "Two Cultures"
Straggler writes:
It is almost as if the arts and humanities are deemed by some people to be higher forms of knowledge whilst science is looked down on as a sort of advanced exercise in plumbing or welding. Undoubtably useful. But with litttle to say about anything of much intellectual consequence or interest.
Really? I'm glad I'm not a part of such circles, then. I'd get frustrated very quickly if someone answered subjective questions with arrogant, firm answers.
I find most humanities' "answers" to be the opposite of "much intellectual consequence or interest." Well, that's not true. They certainly are interesting but they really can't have too much consequence (in the grand scheme of reality sense) because there's no way to know if they're actually true. And, in most cases, it's obvious that there's no single correct answer.
I see science as a court of definitive answers.
I see the humanities as a court of popularity/persuasiveness. (Or sometimes forced practicality... "why shouldn't I kill?" "Because the rest of society will kill you...")
I don't see any reason why humanities could possibly be considered "higher knowledge" than science. It's impossible to have high confidence in a "correct" answer. There's always a measure of "or this entire concept could be completely irrelevant, really..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2009 8:46 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by anglagard, posted 07-31-2009 6:04 AM Stile has replied
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 07-31-2009 1:21 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 17 of 27 (517332)
07-31-2009 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by anglagard
07-31-2009 6:04 AM


No correct answer at all?
anglagard writes:
Stile writes:
And, in most cases, it's obvious that there's no single correct answer.
I think "having no correct answer" has another name, life.
There is a subtlety in here that I would like to explain a bit more.
I would say that Life has "no single correct answer."
However, I do not agree that Life has "no correct answer."
Life does have a correct answer. It's just subjective and different for each and every one of us. That doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it subjective.
For simplicity's sake:
What is your favourite colour?
Stile: Green
Ugly guy: Brown
We can't say that "there is no correct answer" because both answers are correct (given that me and ugly guy aren't lying).
We can only say that "there is no single correct answer" in the sense that there isn't one answer that is correct for everyone.
However, both answers certainly are correct.
I know this is a very simple and irrelevant example, but I think it shows how subjective answers exist as correct answers, they're just not correct for everyone.
Which is why I do not understand an "arrogant humanities scholar" who would "inform" people that he has the answer to a subjective question. It doesn't make sense.
Sorry if this post is pedantic, sometimes I just keep typing...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by anglagard, posted 07-31-2009 6:04 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 24 of 27 (519925)
08-18-2009 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by petrophysics1
08-18-2009 11:44 AM


Re: The ability to observe is the key
petrophysics1 writes:
Stile writes:
The humanities cannot ever be more than "a best guess" because there's nothing to verify or test the answer against.
...
You get a description of the criminal from the 4 "science" types. The artist draws you a portrait of the criminal.
Given your quote above, do you throw out the drawing as bullshit?
No, of course not.
I take the portrait as the "best guess" that it is and use it to try and catch the criminal. Of course, we must remember that it still is nothing more than a "best guess" since we have nothing to verify or test the answer against (like a video tape of the robbery). What makes you think the portrait is anything more than a "best guess" in terms of accuracy? We know that portraits drawn from descriptions of human memory are very prone to error. Regardless of the error in translation through the artist, there's also error in the human memory in the first place.
In order to have accurate knowledge of the criminal, however, the "best guess" of the portrait is not-so-useful. In order to have accurate knowledge of the criminal, we would require DNA or a video tape or some other objective, verifiable method of identification.
The humanities are OBSERVATION.
... the humanities teach us how to look at and observe the world, not necessarily explain it.
Yes, and they attempt to do so without having anyting to verify or test the answer against, as your portrait example shows us splendidly. Leaving the humanities to still be nothing more than a "best guess."
I'm not saying that best guesses are useless. But it is dangerous thinking indeed to take a "best guess" as an accurate description of truth.
The accurate observation is first, then come the explanations.
Correct. Science is based on accurate observations. The humanities cannot tell us whether or not the observations are accurate... because they are only a best-guess. Only verification and objectivity can show us if the observations are accurate.
Science is based on verification and objectivity. It is not based on the humanities.
Again, this isn't to say that the humanities are useless for everything, it's just that they're not very useful for obtaining known-to-be-accurate knowledge about the world. The best they can provide are best-guesses about ideals. Which is it's own useful tool for studies involving more thought-based exercises.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by petrophysics1, posted 08-18-2009 11:44 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Theodoric, posted 08-18-2009 6:04 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024