The foundation of science is supposed to be about making new discoveries and forming theories, and then testing out those theories through experiments. It seems that many people often forget that so much of science is discovery and discussion, much like it is in humanities. For example, astronomers can look at the same night sky for their entire life and make new discoveries about it every day, just how a book can be re-read over and over and still new interpretations can be gained with each re-read. Also, certain technology is required to make scientific observations, similar to how we need supplementary materials such as the Bedford in this course. So, if so much of both science and humanities is about taking a closer look with the help of technology and forming explanations for why things are the way they are, then why are they often viewed as being so disparate?
I recently started watching the X-Files, and in the show Agent Scully and Agent Mulder witness unexplained phenomena every episode. While Mulder is always quick to assume that it’s aliens, Scully is much more skeptical. She is always adamant on there being a proven scientific reason behind these unexplained phenomena. I understand and even relate to her desire to find answers about new information from things she is already familiar with, but what I don’t understand is why she has closed her mind off to the possibility of new scientific discoveries. Mulder on the other hand always has his mind open and receives the nickname “spooky Mulder” because of it. While he does take his theories a bit far from time to time, I don’t think he is deserving of constant ridicule. This opposition between Scully and Mulder reminds me of the opposition between humanities and science. In the “Science, Space, and Nature” chapter of Interdisciplinarity Moran states, “Those in the sciences still tend to criticize humanities scholars for disregarding empirical methods and relying on subjective interpretations; those in the humanities attack absolute objectivity” (Moran 136). Scully represents the sciences with her preference for “empirical methods,” while Mulder represents humanities with his reliance on “subjective interpretations.” But regardless of how different their methods are, Scully and Mulder are only ever able to find answers if they work together. Alone, they are both too extreme in their viewpoints. But together, Scully forces Mulder to rationally think his interpretations through while Mulder is then in return able to open Scully’s mind a bit to the possibility of new discoveries not yet explained by proven science. In the same manner that Scully and Mulder are able to consolidate despite their differences, I believe that science and humanities should be able to operate on a more interdisciplinary level.
In Emma’s post “Artistic Muscle” she talks about how in the past she has “had an aversion to science” because it did not click with her as well as other subjects did. This is definitely something I can relate to, even though I have always been intrigued by science. Even now in college, I feel nervous about taking an astronomy course because I have heard it contains a lot of physics, something I’ve never been exposed to before and am rather intimidated by. My interest in astronomy outweighs this fear, but I feel as though there is something about science that can make it feel unapproachable. It’s easy to say that Emma and I should simply try harder and commit ourselves to doing things that we aren’t as comfortable with, but it’s not that simple. There is seemingly a large gap between science and humanities, so much so that students will often feel the need to choose one or the other. I think that if the two disciplines were more interconnected this would not happen. Of course, not all students pick just one. For example, the other day, Claire mentioned how she was a physics and English double major, and my group was immediately impressed. It’s certainly impressive in itself to be a double major in anything, but I feel as though my group and I were surprised by the fact that she was majoring in two disciplines that are often considered exclusive to one another. Claire is proof that it’s not necessary to choose one or the other, but my group’s surprise shows that we still have a long way to go until the general view of science and humanities is that they’re interdisciplinary.
It’s just as Moran said, “The long-standing division between the humanities and the sciences remains a resilient obstacle to interdisciplinary study” (Moran 134). But I think the benefits of mending this division would be boundless. Just look at what Everett was able to achieve with his poem “Body.” He was able to show how science can be beautifully utilized in poetry.