Sir, J. R. Knight (letter, July 1) bemoans how the “pseudosciences” of the humanities have done little to improve the human lot, but he unwittingly makes use of exactly the kind of judgments that only the humanities are equipped to make.
Mr Knight proclaims that war and greed are things in need of a cure, and thus that humanity would be better off without these things. However, this is a moral prejudice, not a scientific assumption, and many in the humanities would tell us that precisely the opposite is the case: it is great conflict that has tended to accelerate technological progress and father periods of artistic vitality; and it is greed that makes a thriving economy possible. Mr Knight should therefore appreciate that even in lauding science over the humanities he necessarily strays into the territory of the latter.
D. K. Todhunter
Manchester
Sir, J. R. Knight assumes a righteous imperialism that simply does not exist. Science has brought benefits to mankind, but it has also brought destruction. It is scientists who developed war machines, including nuclear weapons; and it is scientists who carried out experiments in Nazi concentration camps.
Advertisement
He argues that the humanities have done little or nothing to solve war, cruelty or greed. But his form of science has also failed to solve these issues. Humanity scientists are as rigorous in their methodological investigations as any in the so-called hard sciences. They bring to their work a deep concern for the human condition and recognise the overlap between the beauty of philosophy and the empirical exploration of factual knowledge. It is sad that he polarises the argument when both sides seek the same aim, which is the pursuit of truth and the progressive improvement of the human lot.
Terence Crolley
Maghull, Merseyside
Sir, In his essay on The Two Cultures, C. P. Snow anticipated the debate between Lord Howarth of Newport and Dr Antony Roberts (letters, June 28 and 29). Snow was an eminent physicist and a considerable novelist (eg, Corridors of Power). In his essay he argued that scientists should be conversant with literature, art and music, while non-scientists should aim to become more scientifically literate.
However, while it is relatively easy for a scientist to become literate in literature etc, it is difficult for a non-scientist to acquire an understanding of quantum mechanics.
Advertisement
Julian Dare
Oxford
Sir, As a book reading, art collecting, opera-loving engineer I was taken aback by Lord Howarth’s letter. I am at a loss to understand why he believes that scientists, technicians, engineers and mathematicians are less capable than humanitarians of understanding language and the ability to use it effectively, to distinguish honest discourse from propaganda or to exercise the imagination in disciplined and creative ways. My experience is the converse.
That authority should distrust the arts and humanities as unbiddable and frequently subversive is merely a reflection of everyday observation. Perhaps Lord Howarth might also reflect on why so many successfully developing countries have education programmes that encourage STEM, whereas Britain’s lamentable education system is manifestly failing the needs of a modern society. Could it be that they have a large number of scientists and engineers in their governments and we have very few?
No wonder the House of Lords is in need of reform.
Advertisement
Keith Read
Vice-Chairman, The Science Council