Legion Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 My fellow heathens, I come before you here with a mission, a mission of unity. We are few. We are family. And though we have our deep disagreements, I think maintaining some semblence of unity is important for us. I (and I am not alone in this) sense a growing rift between those here who gravitate towards the humanities and those who gravitate towards the sciences. And I confess, I have fallen into this argument too. I am guilty. But this guilt will not prevent me from trying to mend the rift. I believe, in some appropriate sense, that spirituality is the humanity of the humanities, just as some believe that physics is the science of the sciences. (I think biology is actually the top dog science, but of course the physicists would vehemently disagree.) Now, even though I generally prefer to advocate science and spend my time in the sciences, I also recognize the legitimacy and power of the humanities, yea, even spirituality. Any of you who have known me can vouch for me. I write poetry. I post music. And I've even posted in the spirituality forum. Gasp! However, when those here who prefer the humanities over the sciences do not also recognize the power and legitimacy of science, I feel slighted. And I am tempted to remove my public advocacy of the humanities. Thus we can see the roots of a growing rift. I really have little else to add. I just wanted express this, and see what thoughts may flow. Please, if you have thoughts here which you think will help ameliorate these tensions, then please share them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I think often its a matter of language. Its ways to figure out the world. I find, reading history, I learn the most about humanity as a species. Mostly because I don't know a lot about science. And it can't tell me about how we should live, science just tells me what should be done or is. I want to craft my existence better. That is why I pay attention to history. I find similar things in philosophy but more so in history. Its why that as compared to science I am a student of the humanities. History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity. -Cicero http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/24312.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 23, 2012 Author Share Posted February 23, 2012 I think it's very interesting that you mention this Valk. And you speak it so well. I confess that my knowledge of history is sparse. However I do have a growing interest in sociology. What kind of relation do you see between history and sociology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I think it's very interesting that you mention this Valk. And you speak it so well. I confess that my knowledge of history is sparse. However I do have a growing interest in sociology. What kind of relation do you see between history and sociology? Without archeology and anthropology and sociology (at least as its explain to the past) history becomes meaningless. History in many ways informs sociology. Think of say the poor people in the Appalachian mountains. You wouldn't know where to begin in understanding them now sociologically if you didn't have a great understanding of there history. You wouldn't be able to understand the race relations today if you don't have a good understanding of how it got there. Sociology and history are in many ways indistinguishable from each other in there practical application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I took introductory classes in sociology, psychology, and physical (biological) anthropology, and I loved them all. They all contribute to different aspects of "life" (whatever it is ), human behavior, and culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 To woo or not to woo, that is the question. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 Without archeology and anthropology and sociology (at least as its explain to the past) history becomes meaningless. History in many ways informs sociology. Think of say the poor people in the Appalachian mountains. You wouldn't know where to begin in understanding them now sociologically if you didn't have a great understanding of there history. You wouldn't be able to understand the race relations today if you don't have a good understanding of how it got there. Sociology and history are in many ways indistinguishable from each other in there practical application. Okay Valk, okay. How could I deny this? I wonder if maybe you, Casey, MWC, and me could possibly put our heads together and come up with some ideas for observables on societies. That would be a motley crew for sure, but I have some ideas about how these observables could be encoded into language and inferences drawn. I took introductory classes in sociology, psychology, and physical (biological) anthropology, and I loved them all. They all contribute to different aspects of "life" (whatever it is ), human behavior, and culture. I think that is allure of understanding on one hand and an offer for an argument on the other Hans. I think some scientists already know the necessary conditions for a natural system to be an organism, though not the sufficient conditions. But man! I wish I had some of those classes under my belt. To woo or not to woo, that is the question. The highest form of flattery for Shakespeare, a master in the humanities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 However, when those here who prefer the humanities over the sciences do not also recognize the power and legitimacy of science, I feel slighted. And I am tempted to remove my public advocacy of the humanities. I am not very happy with this statement, Legion. Quite frankly, I am restraining myself because I know you aren't like this all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 However, when those here who prefer the humanities over the sciences do not also recognize the power and legitimacy of science, I feel slighted. And I am tempted to remove my public advocacy of the humanities. I am not very happy with this statement, Legion. Oh? Why does it make you unhappy Deva? Quite frankly, I am restraining myself because I know you aren't like this all the time. Ah, okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 Do I have to spell it out for you? If you wish for me to understand, then yes. You have been provoking me lately and I am just not going there. I feel I've been quite reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VacuumFlux Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I don't think the sciences and humanities have to be in conflict. I work with scientists on rather technical things, but my hobbies are in the arts. There's paintings hanging up in the physics building that a physicist painted, probably from Hubble pictures. The math building has a marble sculpture in the foyer of a beautiful mathematical structure. I've talked to people in the humanities who are fascinated by what I work on and want to hear all about it. There's probably (I don't know any personally) people who work in the humanities/arts whose hobbies lean more towards the technical end of things. I have heard multiple people express that they need both in their life to feel whole. I think some of the bigger problems are language differences. I have a hard time explaining scientific concepts to someone who doesn't have a strong math background. The general public has some really bizarre ideas about the current understanding of science by scientists. I assume I come off as equally naive to someone who has been immersed in a different type of language and assumptions. And I know that in a lot of popular books by scientists, they have brilliant down-to-earth explanations of their field, but then they try to go off into speculation about the future and/or philosophy and it's painfully bad. Specialists are specialized, and being in the top of the field one area doesn't prevent you from being a total idiot in another. I'm currently trying to find some sort of spirituality that works for me. I feel like my life is missing something. I want some rituals, some symbolism, some stories, that can help me integrate my experiences. I feel somewhat dissociated from everyday life, like I'm stuck living inside my head and keep forgetting about the external world. I've been reading random stuff online about different paths and stuff. I am currently at the point where I am reminded over and over that there are many forms of spirituality other than christianity, and the slander than christians spread about everyone else is quite often wrong, and that there are ways of thinking about the world that I have never considered. I can't figure out whether or not something works for me until I figure figure out what it is. And that's hard, and outside my realm of specialization. But it's too important and personal to blindly trust an outside authority. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Okay Valk, okay. How could I deny this? I wonder if maybe you, Casey, MWC, and me could possibly put our heads together and come up with some ideas for observables on societies. That would be a motley crew for sure, but I have some ideas about how these observables could be encoded into language and inferences drawn. Here is a good example of your point. Western, lower middle and middle class, supporters of islamic jihad (not in the pussywhiped leftist sort of way, but in the suicide bomber sort of way) have something in common with strangely a thing in history totally unrelated. The Manson Family is what they are in common with. Here is why, the type of people from the western world that would follow islamic jihad, are the same types that would follow the manson family. These people are people coming from tough backgrounds, lousy homes, and these are people who don't really know who they are and why there here. A lot of the members of the Manson family are very similar to the type of people who would follow islamic jihad. That is both a sociological statement and a historical one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I get the feeling here that I am meant to bow down and worship science. I don't want to. I don't give a shit whether we crawled from the ooze, fell down from the trees or were dropped from a spaceship. Its a moot point. I'm more concerned with how we behave now we are here. That I have some control over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I get the feeling here that I am meant to bow down and worship science. I don't want to. I don't give a shit whether we crawled from the ooze, fell down from the trees or were dropped from a spaceship. Its a moot point. I'm more concerned with how we behave now we are here. That I have some control over Don't shit in my pond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I get the feeling here that I am meant to bow down and worship science. I don't want to. I don't give a shit whether we crawled from the ooze, fell down from the trees or were dropped from a spaceship. Its a moot point. I'm more concerned with how we behave now we are here. That I have some control over Don't shit in my pond. Your never could take it ovum..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I get the feeling here that I am meant to bow down and worship science. I don't want to. I don't give a shit whether we crawled from the ooze, fell down from the trees or were dropped from a spaceship. Its a moot point. I'm more concerned with how we behave now we are here. That I have some control over Don't shit in my pond. Your never could take it ovum..... I guess answering off topic, to a off topic remark wasn't good on my part. I know what you think and respect it, but really what you said amount to, HEY LOOK AT ME. That is why I responded the way I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I get the feeling here that I am meant to bow down and worship science. I don't want to. I don't give a shit whether we crawled from the ooze, fell down from the trees or were dropped from a spaceship. Its a moot point. I'm more concerned with how we behave now we are here. That I have some control over Don't shit in my pond. Your never could take it ovum..... I guess answering off topic, to a off topic remark wasn't good on my part. I know what you think and respect it, but really what you said amount to, HEY LOOK AT ME. That is why I responded the way I did. Most Aussies don't go hey look at me coz when they do most people just roll their eyes and ignore them. What I was saying is this. If I am a self important uncaring asshole I can either blame it on xthousands of years of evolution or I can accept responsibility for my own poor behaviour and amend it. I came from an outrageously troubled family and I would be the last person to be involved in group behavior of any kind that compromised my personal integrity, regardless of the group's approval. There is room for both hard science and the humanities in the way we engage the world. My particular personal fascination is with human behaviour, not physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 I get the feeling here that I am meant to bow down and worship science. I don't want to. I don't give a shit whether we crawled from the ooze, fell down from the trees or were dropped from a spaceship. Its a moot point. I'm more concerned with how we behave now we are here. That I have some control over Don't shit in my pond. Your never could take it ovum..... I guess answering off topic, to a off topic remark wasn't good on my part. I know what you think and respect it, but really what you said amount to, HEY LOOK AT ME. That is why I responded the way I did. Most Aussies don't go hey look at me coz when they do most people just roll their eyes and ignore them. What I was saying is this. If I am a self important uncaring asshole I can either blame it on xthousands of years of evolution or I can accept responsibility for my own poor behaviour and amend it. I came from an outrageously troubled family and I would be the last person to be involved in group behavior of any kind that compromised my personal integrity, regardless of the group's approval. There is room for both hard science and the humanities in the way we engage the world. My particular personal fascination is with human behaviour, not physics. Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Okay. This is the colloseum. To all parties, keep the cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 What kind of play does economics have in this question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 I think you said a lot of good things here VacuumFlux, and I could have responded at much greater length. I don't think the sciences and humanities have to be in conflict. I don't believe they necessarily have to be either. But I think during the course of our cognitive development we each wind our own way through a maze of conscious and unconscious decisions about what is good and true. Later on, some of us end up near the vicinity of Zen Buddhism and some end up near experimental physics. And we are each able to justify our decisions to ourselves. If we couldn't then we wouldn't have made the choices we did. To each of us, our decisions seem the best. And I think the temptation is to have disregard or even contempt for those who chose differently. I think some of the bigger problems are language differences. I agree. And I think you hint at the underlying issue, the distinction between syntax and semantics. Taking two different extremes which are both examples of language, we have calculus on one hand and poetry on the other. I'm currently trying to find some sort of spirituality that works for me. Sounds good. I try to maintain some balance. In making my decisions, I now find myself somewhere in the vicinity of theoretical biology. And of course, I think it's best. Valk I'm getting to you next! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 What kind of play does economics have in this question? I think I might answer my own question. Really I think I guess the difference is really between these things. Its a understanding out the immaterial (hard science, biology). The humanities are a understanding of the interior and how they effect the exterior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 Here is a good example of your point. Western, lower middle and middle class, supporters of islamic jihad (not in the pussywhiped leftist sort of way, but in the suicide bomber sort of way) have something in common with strangely a thing in history totally unrelated. The Manson Family is what they are in common with. Here is why, the type of people from the western world that would follow islamic jihad, are the same types that would follow the manson family. These people are people coming from tough backgrounds, lousy homes, and these are people who don't really know who they are and why there here. A lot of the members of the Manson family are very similar to the type of people who would follow islamic jihad. That is both a sociological statement and a historical one. Hmm... I have a hard time hanging my hat on this. It's difficult for me to understand. Nevertheless I still think your interests overlap with mine to an extent where we might be able to work together. We both seem to think that trying to understand society is a worthy goal. If we do explore this further then I think we will likely have some language issues, but I don't believe they are insurmountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Here is a good example of your point. Western, lower middle and middle class, supporters of islamic jihad (not in the pussywhiped leftist sort of way, but in the suicide bomber sort of way) have something in common with strangely a thing in history totally unrelated. The Manson Family is what they are in common with. Here is why, the type of people from the western world that would follow islamic jihad, are the same types that would follow the manson family. These people are people coming from tough backgrounds, lousy homes, and these are people who don't really know who they are and why there here. A lot of the members of the Manson family are very similar to the type of people who would follow islamic jihad. That is both a sociological statement and a historical one. Hmm... I have a hard time hanging my hat on this. It's difficult for me to understand. Nevertheless I still think your interests overlap with mine to an extent where we might be able to work together. We both seem to think that trying to understand society is a worthy goal. If we do explore this further then I think we will likely have some language issues, but I don't believe they are insurmountable. Well I am not totally convinced of my argument there either. But I was just using it as a example of where the two things overlap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted February 24, 2012 Author Share Posted February 24, 2012 Well I am not totally convinced of my argument there either. But I was just using it as a example of where the two things overlap. Oh sure! Yeah, I believe that history and sociology can inform each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts