Both Lindsey Zelvin’s letter and Madeleine Jacobs’s lecture from late October implied that humanities and sciences are two distinctively separate fields that are incompatible with each other. This runs aground when compared to the College’s motto, “Scientia et religio ex uno fonte.” Both humanities and sciences seek to challenge assumptions of the world using complex rhetoric manifested in expressive forms (e.g. art, music, literature) or scientific advancement.
The rhetoric and the methodology that each field uses differs slightly. However, the techniques used are constantly being communicated across fields and disciplines; advances in neural networks alter the analysis of Agatha Christie’s works, while social theory informs understanding of cell signaling. These connections are often hidden, as when individuals produce a product, the driving methodology is often presented only in the light of the individual field.
The most recent Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded for the development of molecular machines. The chemistry is fascinating and awe inspiring; however, without a theoretical understanding of what machines are, the importance of these molecules disappears.
The hiding of these methodological connections has been propagated through the educational system, and more generally, academia, which produces individual, defined disciplines. As we define our institutions more and more by these disciplines, we are segregating ourselves based on methodologies. As methodologies change and other fields develop, we are insulated from these developments through the separation of the fields.
However, the most radical observations and advancements in each discipline often occur at the locations where methods are changing.
Thus, by reducing the perceived barrier between humanities and sciences and integrating the methodologies used, we can challenge the defined disciplines and develop new, profound ideas.
Herbert Sizek, a Contributing Writer for the Voice, can be reached for comment at HSizek17@wooster.edu