Besides, the sciences and humanities have to start bridging better. A good example is history.

They cooperate but I don’t think they can fold into each other neatly like Russian nesting dolls.

There’s systems at one perspective that are invisible from another perspective.

I think a unified Science is a bit of a nice dream but I think we’re much further away from that as a realistic possibility – not for a very long time.

Besides, the sciences and humanities have to start bridging better. A good example is history. Have you ever see scientific views of history? They’re just awful. They oversimplify and miss so much. It’s not that a singularly focused viewpoint isn’t valuable to consider (such as an elaborate proof that “This is the cause of (some historical event)” but it has to ignore so many other factors that its value is limited.

==

Here’s a recent example of ridiculousness: Proofs that Global Warming is THE cause of Syria’s current problems.

It’s not that it’s purely invalid as a proof. It *can* be proven _if_ one ignores a lot of other factors and focuses singularly on one particular cause that leads to the results by fitting matching factors in the middle of the story.

It’s ridiculous. Contributing factor? Sure. Some correlation? Sure. Causation? Ridiculous.

 

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


7 + one =

Leave a Reply