Two tribes? Science and art are more like than unalike

The case for research funding in the humanities is stronger if we recognise the similarities, argues David Eastwood

Published on
March 19, 2015
Last updated
June 10, 2015

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Reader's comments (2)

This guy works in "the humanities"? Please note how he is totally unable to reference anything from any of the humanities: no line from any poem, no character from any novel, no plot from any film. Instead we get wonk-talk: "cumulative," "congruence," "synthesis." Yes, "the humanities" and the sciences do resemble, copy each other. All divvy up into departments where, for careerism, all honor the taboo against seeing or referencing anything in anyone else's department. All want a literacy stripped of humane references. Goodbye outside perspectives. Hello claustrophobia of dehumanized wonk-speak.
Aristotle first divided the arts from the sciences and, on balance, I think he got it right. Works of art are unique and stand forever. However, scientific discoveries are always in danger of becoming obsolete - for example, Newton's laws of motion were blown out of the water by general relativity and quantum field theory. History, however, is an interesting case - it is clearly part of the arts and humanities but historical theories can (and are) often rendered obsolete with further research.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT