Left vs. Right Brain Credit:theconversation.com
Introduction
Ever since Descartes and the age of enlightenment use data as the foundation of our knowledge society, this data-centric view has gradually developed to a concept defined by the term ‘Big Data’, a synonym for the exponentially growing volume of information. This trend may also be judged by two different disciplines, termed as science and the humanities. Both define two different, historically grown methodologies, dealing with the complexity of our daily life and to provide a mental framework to decide what is true or false. Fact is that our educational system has become strongly focused on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and it seems that an inherent conflict between science and the humanities reduces the latter to an increasingly passive role in our economy-driven society. The following discusses some of the issues why this trend to overemphasize science might generate wrong conclusions.
Pros and Cons of Big Data
One hundred years ago, only a few data points relevant to an individual were collected over the span of their lifetime: when they were born, if they got married and had children and when they died. These details, brief enough to fit on a gravestone, give us little insight into what daily life was like in a time before advanced technology and computer development emerged. Imagine the kind of work researchers and social scientists performed. They developed and conducted formal studies that took weeks, months and even years to complete in order to gain more detailed insight on the daily habits and needs of people and communities. Today, however, the massive amount of data collected and stored every second across the globe with a variety of sensors and methods is applied by every type of industry or organization to shape businesses, cultures and communities. While big data has made a positive impact across industries and society at large, it also presents challenges of which anyone who uses data to make decisions should be aware. One of the primary concerns with ‘big data’ is that biased algorithms can perpetuate existing inequalities and undermine trust in automated decision-making systems. This is particularly true in health care and financial AI-systems, where historic and systemic oversights of marginalized, less important populations create discriminatory results. As a result, biased data sets may lead to biased results.
Definition of the Humanities and the Sciences
The Humanities are all of those academic disciplines that focus on the truly human elements of life expressed by our unique ability to express our innermost thoughts, feelings and desires through words and actions. In the strictest sense, the humanities are literature and language, history, philosophy and the arts including painting, poetry, theatre, and sculpture. Law, religion and mythology are often considered to belong to the humanities as well, while the debate continues as to whether subjects like archaeology, anthropology and geography are part of the humanities or part of the sciences. The ‘big four’ representatives of the humanities – literature and language, history, philosophy and the arts – have been developed over time, starting with the ancient Greek and Roman ages to the Middle Ages up to the Renaissance and beyond. In the fifteenth century, the Latin phrase studia humanitatis began to be used by Italian humanists to refer to any course of studies that was fundamentally human as opposed to the divine. In the five centuries that followed, science has become a greater opposing force to the divine, and the studia humanitatis have become the synonym for representing the humanities in strong contrast to the ongoing development of the sciences. Whereas the humanities look for the human meaning of things, the sciences focus more precisely on the provable mechanisms of life and providing mathematically based theories as to how human behaviour is structured.
The Sciences are typically divided into three groups: Natural sciences which include biology, physics, chemistry and geology; Formal sciences, including mathematics, statistics and data-based subjects like computing and AI and finally social sciences. Archaeology, anthropology and geography are disputed by some that these disciplines really are part of the sciences or should be considered to be part of the humanities. Whether mathematics is in fact a science is a much-debated issue as well. Since ancient times, both the sciences as well as the humanities, have been valued as part of our society. Throughout history, the scientific drive to understand the world through strict observation and experimentation has often clashed with religion, as represented by the famous conflict between Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church regarding his theory about the motion of the sun. Considering that religion is typically regarded as part of the humanities, one can appreciate how the conflict with the humanities has intensified over the past five hundred years. Scientific techniques and technology have accelerated in dealing with the complexities of every-day life with the result that its representatives increasingly consider humanities as a waste of time.
Differentiating Humanities and the Sciences
The disagreement lies in two fundamentally different ways of looking at the world. Science is always looking for the indisputable proof of things. If a question is posed, the answer is obtained through rigorous observation and testing. Science wants the ‘correct’ and it wants proof of the ‘correct’. Humanists practise a different approach. There is no correct and in most cases no right or wrong. The humanities pose questions of deep human significance which bring into play thoughts, feelings, ideologies, prejudices and many other abstract concepts which typically cannot be applied in science. Consider, for example, a beautiful piece of literature such as a poem. Three readers might have three completely different interpretations of the meaning of it. Each could then use thousands of words explaining their interpretation. None of the three individuals would necessarily be wrong. This the beauty of the humanities but also the key to its conflict with science. One seeks certainties, while the other delights in the untouchable and mysterious. In today’s academic world, science generally has far more use for technology than the humanities. After all, how can a philosopher’s quality of thought be ‘improved’ with technology? Science draws power from technological advances, which allow it to accelerate further and examine more deeply the unsolved problems of the world.
Strengthening the Contribution of the Humanities
Many scientists are convinced that the humanities have little to offer for scientific progress. There are reasons for this disdain. Unlike the sciences, the humanities emphasize conceptual analysis and interpretative frameworks, which many scientists consider too abstract or too detached from the practicalities of scientific research. Many scientists may struggle to see the immediate relevance of humanists’ contributions to their work. Moreover, the sciences and the humanities have very different criteria for success. Success in the sciences is often measured by empirical discovery, innovation and the ability to predict and control phenomena. The humanities, however, evaluate success based on insight, understanding and the ability to interrogate and interpret human experiences and cultural practices. Humanists can offer critical perspectives about the methods, aims and impact of scientific inquiry. By bringing philosophical rigor, ethical sensitivity and cultural awareness to the practice of science, they contribute to a more nuanced, reflective and socially engaged understanding of science and its role in society. They can also address issues such as the moral responsibility of scientists, the need for equitable distribution of scientific benefits and risks, and the long-term consequences of scientific advancements, while examining how societal values influence scientific priorities. Nevertheless, the humanities need to do much more to overcome the artificial divide between its disciplines and the sciences, arguing for a more integrated approach to knowledge that values the contributions of both approaches. Hence, we need to promote a vision for a future in which the humanities and sciences are more fully integrated in education and our societal discourse, including policy definition, innovation and cultural understanding.
Conclusion
The fusion of the sciences and the humanities may seem as fanciful and farfetched as the technological achievement of a physical cold fusion process. Nonetheless, those of us on the humanistic side have a responsibility to advocate a more integrated and holistic approach to scientific understanding. The humanities and the sciences truly can enhance each other. The humanities’ future will hinge, in part, on its ability to demonstrate its relevance in an increasingly science-based world.