- Världen behöver människor som kombinerar naturvetenskap, samhällsvetenskap och humaniora. Kursen vill uppmuntra dig att bli en sådan människa.
Naturvetenskap+ är en modern gymnasiekurs (Naturvetenskaplig specialisering) som behandlar evolutionsbiologi, kognitions- och socialpsykologi, logik, statistik, sannolikhet, retorik, argumentationsanalys, vetenskapshistoria och -teori, olika vetenskapliga metoder, filosofi och etik, samhälle, media och klimat. Med mer.
- Olle Häggström tror att gymnasieskolans kurs har precis rätt tänk. För att klara utmaningar som mänskligheten står inför måste naturvetenskap kombineras med filosofi, samhällsvetenskap och humaniora.
- Det skulle vara mycket värt om Häggström eller någon annan av samma kaliber fördjupar diskussionen och författar en mera klargörande text om hur det egentligen ligger till mellan Vetenskap och Humaniora inte bara inom den akademiska världen utan vad ett närmande mellan dessa discipliner skulle kunna innebära för samhället i stort.
- In his commentary on my essay “Science is Not your Enemy,” Leon Wieseltier writes, “It is not for science to say whether science belongs in morality and politics and art.” I reply: It is not for Leon Wieseltier to say where science belongs. Good ideas can come from any source, and they must be evaluated on their cogency, not on the occupational clique of the people who originated them.
Wieseltier’s insistence that science should stay inside a box he has built for it and leave the weighty questions to philosophy is based on a fallacy. Yes, certain propositions are empirical, others logical or conceptual or normative; they should not be confused. But propositions are not academic disciplines. Science is not a listing of empirical facts, nor has philosophy ever confined itself to the non-empirical.
Why should either discipline stay inside Wieseltier’s sterile rooms? Does morality have nothing to do with the facts of human well-being, or with the source of human moral intuitions? Does political theory have nothing to learn from a better understanding of people’s inclinations to cooperate, aggress, hoard, share, work, empathize, or submit to authority? Is art really independent of language, perception, memory, emotion? If not, and if scientists have made discoveries about these faculties which go beyond received wisdom, why isn’t it for them to say that these ideas belong in any sophisticated discussion of these topics?
- Wieseltier doubts my sincerity when I note that the benefits of a consilience between the sciences and humanities go both ways. He bizarrely translates my observation that “the sciences [can] challenge their theories with the natural experiments and ecologically valid phenomena that have been so richly characterized by humanists” as “scientists think well and humanists write well." So let me explain the observation with a few examples of two-way traffic just from my own research. Theories of the mental representation of the visual field must accommodate the fact that the reproduction of linear perspective in painting is not cognitively natural but was a late invention in the history of art. A major theory of auditory scene analysis receives important confirmation from the phenomenon of virtual polyphony in music. Theories of mental imagery must account for the observations by analytical philosophers that images lack the geometric detail of visual percepts, and that even with such detail they would be unsuited to represent abstract concepts. Research in psycholinguistics depends heavily on philological scholarship on the history of words and grammatical constructions in English and other languages. Theories of cognitive categorization begin with contrasting views on the nature of concepts from Aristotle and Wittgenstein. The science of human aggression has learned immeasurably from the history of crime, war, genocide, criminal punishment, and religious and cultural attitudes toward violence. Examples could be multiplied from the research of others.