A 2-second distraction in the run-up to the 50th anniversary of CP Snow’s Two Cultures lecture: Take the two-cultures poll (below), and see how your answer aligns with those from others:
(If you can’t see the poll, click here)
Now you’ve pressed the button and seen the results, here’s the background:
On May 7th 1959, the scientist, politician and novelist CP Snow highlighted a destructive gulf between the literary intellectuals of the day and scientists – his “two cultures.” Fifty years on, the cultures have changed, but possibly not as much as we would like to believe…
So where are we now? Do most people respect and understand science? Have the cultures of science and the humanities reconciled their differences? Or are there new cultures and divides emerging that are just as divisive now as Snow’s two cultures were 50 years ago?
These are issues that are going to aired far and wide around next week’s 50th anniversary of Snow’s Two Cultures lecture. As a precursor to these discussions though I wanted to start the ball rolling by posing a question that Snow famously asked of his literary friends.
But I wanted to pose the question with a twist.
Snow asked his colleagues to describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a way of revealing their disregard for scientific understanding. I’ve long felt the question was unfair, and Snow himself acknowledged its limitations in a follow-on to his 1959 lecture.
But a little bit of me has been dying to ask the question anyway – just to see what sort of responses I got.
Here’s the twist though: Rather than ask for a formal definition of a formal Law, the question above tests people’s grasp of the underlying science, and how they judge its importance. The possibility (or not) of perpetual motion – pendulums and other devices that go for ever and continue to work without additional fuel or maintenance – is deeply embedded in the Second Law of Thermodynamics
I have a sneaky suspicion that the results will reveal a greater appreciation for science than Snow found amongst his literary colleagues 50 years ago. But we’ll see – I’ll be blogging on what the poll does (and doesn’t) reveal next week.
And before I’m deluged with comments and criticisms, let me be clear – this isn’t a scientific poll. It is however a great teaser to the he myriad commentaries and seminars that will undoubtedly be appearing on CP Snow and the Two Cultures over the next few weeks. And it might just reveal something interesting – stay tuned.
And finally, please pass this link on – the more people take the 2-second poll, the more interesting the data will be
Thanks!
Update 4/28/09: As a “humanities counterbalance,” PLEASE check Ruth Seeley’s alternative poll out – another short one, so go for it!
Not a bad test. I wonder what a one-question poll going the other way (humanities, for scientists) would be like. How about:
“In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be
understood by everyone, something that no one ever
knew before. But in XXXXX, it’s the exact opposite.”
What was physicist Paul Dirac speaking about?
– History
– Novels
– Psychology
– Poetry
– Drama
Thanks – might have to try it. What would be great though is if a humanities blogger put up a counter-poll like this!
life, existence, energy, whatever name we want to give to it, is already a perpetual motion machine … so is consciousness, as understood in the east …
science exists within a box formed by its understanding of what is possible, but it is telling us what the mind can know about reality, more than it is telling us about reality …
and the hubris of science is approaching fundamentalist levels of intensity … smacking of religion, and the religious impulse …
i hope for a bit more openness in the world of science, enough so that the saying “science proceeds on the basis of funerals” can lose its aptness …
one of these days, subjectivity is going to have to be embraced, as will concepts of subtle aspects of matter and energy and mind …
Thank you gregorylent for kick-starting a great discussion – hope you voted!
I voted, and also created a poll for the other side of the two cultures.
Here you go:
http://www.ruthseeley.com/2009/04/restaging-two-cultures-test.html
the test results are going to be skewed because your audience is mostly scientists.
I am not a scientist. I have an interest in science because I like to always be learning and science, among other subjects, is fascinating. I want to be as informed as I can be.
I think the divide is one that seems apparent when standing within one’s own culture, time and place. Looking back on the history of art or literature, the discoveries of science obviously have a large effect on the art we still consider important.
“and the hubris of science is approaching fundamentalist levels of intensity … smacking of religion, and the religious impulse …”
Sorry gregorylent, I’d have to disagree with you. Yes, some scientists get too attached to some ideas, but if shown their pet hypothesis is just wrong, most abandon it and move forward. There are just not that many scientific zealots. You’re not seriously putting forward that relativistic ‘other ways of knowing’ stuff are you?
I have some sympathy with both gregorylent and Glendon Mellow (see comments above), but think that complex issues are being over-simplified here.
gregorylent seems to be arguing for approaches to understanding and interpreting the world that go beyond the reductionism of science. On one level, this brings in the issue of value systems – how do people interpret what they experience, and make decisions. Here, irrespective of what any one individual or group thinks is “right,” the values that people hold mould societies and so are vitally important.
In this context, the philosophy underlying science can be seen as just another value system. And this is where accusations of hubris begin to emerge, because to many people, assertions that the scientific method/approach/philosophy is the only way to understand the world is to devalue other value systems.
Things get complicated here because most scientists also rely on value systems that are not necessarily science based in making everyday decisions – so claims of adhering to a science-based philosophy can become eroded pretty fast.
For instance, imagine asking a scientists whether funding should be increased for research and development. The answer will be driven either by political considerations (“my peers would disown me if I said no”), personal beliefs (“of course more funding is needed”), or careful reasoning (“after considering all budgetary constraints and societal needs – both near term and strategic – I conclude that increasing R&D funding will have lead to a significant net gain in people’s quality of life”). The point here is that the first two answers are driven by values systems that are not necessarily science-founded.
This isn’t good or bad; it’s simply human. Problems arise though when scientists think that they approach everything in life with a science-based philosophy, or where proponents of other value systems assume this to be the case.
There are a few people who try to live like this this it seems. I get the impression for instance that Richard Dawkins make an honest and valiant attempt to apply scientific reasoning throughout hist life. But the result is polarizing, and gets perilously close to preaching a specific philosophy – to the extent that I’m not surprised some see it as religion by another name.
However… when you strip away the noise, hubris and misunderstandings surrounding science, there is a fundamental difference here between science-driven perspectives and other value systems; ultimately, science is built on evidence. Here, I am 100% behind Glendon. The power of science – in the long run – is that it is self-correcting. Errors in understanding may propagate over the short term, but ultimately they are corrected, because science is about testing the validity of claims and adjusting them in the light of new information.
This is incredibly important for society, as decisions made on how the world should be, rather than how it is, end up harming people. But at the same time, it is naive to assume that replacing all other value systems with science-based thinking will lead to a better society. On the contrary, the indications are that such social engineering is ultimately divisive, because it clashes with the very essence of how people behave.
I must apologize – this turned into a rather long blog of a comment. But the bottom line is that while different cultures inevitably arise within society, a polarization of these cultures is not helpful. Rather – as Snow argued – there needs to be a bridging of ideas, perspectives and understanding, that ultimately supports a healthy society rather than paralyzing it.
But that’s just my view from the soap box – what’s yours?
I think this is a really important discussion that isn’t being had in society. As a jumping off point, I find this sentence of yours quite useful, Andrew:
“This is incredibly important for society, as decisions made on how the world should be, rather than how it is, end up harming people.”
While I agree with your overall point, I think this summarises the problem stemming from this lack of debate about the role of science in society. I agree there are (more than) a few who think rational thought is how we should live our lives, and that evidence trumps politics or guesswork.
But the dichotomy, the paradox, is this – science cannot know “everything” right now. (Whether it can know “everything” <i.eventually is a different question.) Hence we have worked our way into a muddle between not wanting to guess, but not necessarily wanting to use the evidence available to us either. In other words, we become paralyzed by waiting for evidence.
It is this gap – not the “unknowable” realm (i.e. morals and principles, although this is lacking too), but the “unknown” realm, i.e. what we might know some time “soon” – that a lot of decision making seems to exist in, to its own detriment.
This paralysis is dangerous for several reasons: Because it focuses one’s perspective on evidence alone, and in the meanwhile opens itself up to other unacknowledged factors of influence. Because in the real world time is a factor in coming to a decision and time does not always allow for more evidence. And because, as mentioned above, it assumes that all decisions can be made on evidence basis – including those with an ethical aspect which may not actually have a “correct” answer beyond the preference of society.
I am not for or against “science” in particular. But I am for weighing up evidence with instinct, and with preference, and with principles, and with art.
The art of decision-making, perhaps.
Thanks Scribe. I agree with you that this issue of making decisions without all the evidence you would like, or where there are no clear right and wrong answers, is a critical one – it’s at the heart of good policy making, but is something that is often overlooked or misunderstood by the scientific community.
The reality here – as you point out – is that life goes on, and we don’t have the luxury of stopping it until we have dotted every “i” One of the interesting questions this raises though is how value systems/perspectives etc. beyond science can help fill this gap and avoid the potential paralysis – not supplanting evidence-based decision making, but augmenting it.
I’m just reading Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum’s The Culture Crosser http://www.nyas.org/publications/updateUnbound.asp?updateID=144 and killing myself laughing at the description of Snow as a ‘man at a cocktail party, trying to broker a peace between warring tribes of eggheads.’ Hell if it’s that simple, let’s just have a whole lot more parties. Here’s a link to the event May 9: http://www.nyas.org/snc/twocultures/index.asp
Thought this was a great article, and well worth reading – thanks for the link.
I’m actually off to another Two Cultures event at Harvard on the 7th and 8th – celebrating a Cambridge UK lecture in Cambridge US 50 years on. I also did my PhD at the Cavendish labs in Cambridge where Snow started off, and to a small degree have followed his footsteps from science to policy, so some interesting links here.
All I need to do now is write a novel or two…
Hmmm, all I can say is that I’ve never experienced an overwhelming desire to reread the Strangers and Brothers series and have only encountered a few people who’ve ever even attempted it.
Re Cambridge, what can I say other than, you lucky dog. 😉