Oftentimes scientists try to distance themselves from “soft sciences” and “human sciences,” especially disciplines within humanities that employ art and subjectivity. Professor of physics Alan Sokal has participated in these so-called Science wars, as he posted an article “claiming to argue that science [has] no special claim to truth but [is] instead the product of dominant ideologies” (Moran, Interdisciplinarity 143). He later revealed that this publication was a nonsensical hoax whose ideas he criticized heavily. Sokal and a colleague, Bricmont, “claim that they are not against greater interaction between the sciences and the human sciences but want to establish the ‘preconditions’ for such a dialogue, one of which must be a recognition that ‘the natural sciences are not a mere reservoir of metaphors ready to be used in the human sciences’” (Moran, Interdisciplinarity 144).
If you want to restrict our ability to use your language, Alan Sokal, you should remember that we can similarly reserve the right to restrict yours. If you would like to claim scientific knowledge, and in the same vein claim that we don’t have this knowledge, we can assert our artistic and moral knowledge over yours. After all, if you haven’t studied humanities or art, you can’t really know what you are trying to say. In yesterday’s biology class, my professor made an analogy comparing chromosomes to pages in an instruction manual. The analogy worked for the sake of the lecture, but it wasn’t particularly insightful past biological means. Therefore, those disciplined in humanities and arts should be able to take away the rights of scientists to use artistic and literary devices.
Now that previous statement looks detrimental and nonsensical to me, as it should. A metaphor for chromosomes was useful in my biology class, and the ability to use analogy or other traditionally artistic devices should not be restricted from scientists simply because they may not make as insightful devices as artists. What is science without art? And what is art without science? As an aspiring author, I need many things that scientists have done and are doing. I need vaccines and medicines and knowledge about the human body as well as the environment. Every person requires these things. And what does art give, one could ask? A passion, a reason to preserve the body to old age, a complaint and an explanation and a phenomenon. If you would like a more concrete contribution, I have one: we evaluate subjectivity in the all-important way of figuring out how to best relate to one another as humans. We learn, yes, by careful observation as well as trial and error, if I dare use science’s precious language, what makes humans tick. Scientists provide the information, but we are able to say something about it, to use it for ethics and morality and relations.
The interplay between scientists and artists, between “objectivity” and “subjectivity” is necessary to all human life. Therefore, and I say this as a fact, we should not be aiming to put each other down, but instead to thank and uplift one another for each other’s contributions. Hold on, is that too subjective a claim for science? It may be considered subjective because I haven’t measured it, but it’s the subjective truth, a fact of morality. If Sokal can’t find an objective way to measure his pride, it will exist nonetheless. And history has proven time and time again, that is, not so subjectively, that kindness and respect do more for humanity than pride ever has.