A CASE FOR THE REINTEGRATION OF THE NATURAL SCIENCES AND THE

HUMANITIES

Abstract

The humanities and natural sciences have undergone an infringement that can be traced back to
the Renaissance. The rift kept augmenting and reached its zenith during the Enlightenment
during which for the first time a general distaste for metaphysical speculation arose among
natural scientists. For the first time in the history of western civilization, there appeared a
perceivable mutual antipathy and distrust between literary intellectuals and natural scientists.
This rift still prevails and gradually the humanities are being relegated to obscurity due to the
emergence of utilitarian principles in economic theory propagated by classical economics.
Corporate organizations and economic bodies have served to further aggravate the situation
through their myopic stance. But, all is not lost. The humanities and philosophy, in particular, is
slated to make a return to prominence as social progress currently hinges on the revival or critical
and rational thinking as well as questions of morality, ethics and other philosophical
considerations.

Main Article

Historically, the natural sciences and the humanities share a common lineage. Since antiquity,
starting from pre-Socratic philosophers such as Thales, considered the first scientist1,
Anaxagoras, Anaximander and Democritus to Aristotle and Euclid, the very scientists who
speculated about the laws of nature also propounded philosophical theories about the nature of
cosmos. The scientist and the philosopher were one. From about the 5th century till about the
Middle Ages, the monasteries took on the responsibility of educating a select few from elite or
wealthy backgrounds. The sciences and the humanities were taught in the model later adopted by
universities. The first stage of education comprised of the trivium: general grammar, Aristotelian
logic and classical rhetoric. For those who mastered these subjects, pursuing the quadrivium of
arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy was an option.

It was in these monasteries that the flow of knowledge was controlled. Education was confined
to students from elite backgrounds and, consequently, peasants and the common masses were
deprived of an education as it was too expensive without having much practical usefulness.
Eventually, it was due to the dogmatic and doctrinal nature of the pedagogy and the refusal to
look beyond established canons of knowledge the characteristics of all religious institutions
that a few natural philosophers2 and mathematicians started questioning the truth of the teachings
of the Roman Catholic Church. Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler can be considered the first
modern scientists for trying to explain their theories mathematically. Each of them questioned
the geocentric conception of the cosmos and, even though Galileo suffered more than the rest, all
of them were insistent on an objective reality irrespective of the prevalent weltanshauung
(worldview) provided by the Catholic Church.

1
Carl Sagans Cosmos
2
Etymologically, a philosopher is one who pursues philosophy (philo= love + sophia= knowledge, wisdom). Till the
19th century there was no etymological distinction between philosopher and a scientist. All scientists were referred
to as natural philosophers. In 1834, William Whewell coined the terms scientist and physicist.
The Renaissance as well as the Reformation had a debilitating effect on the authority of the
Catholic Church. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 also had considerable repercussions as it
was also one of the events which led to the Renaissance. Scholars in possession of classical
manuscripts and texts fled towards Italy from fear of destruction of these invaluable reservoirs of
knowledge. The availability of the classical texts and the advent of the printing press led to an
unprecedented dissemination of knowledge among the masses. For the first time in history, the
common man had access to the vast reservoir of knowledge of Greek and Roman philosophers
and, eventually, many of them started scrutinizing these texts. Philosophers such as Descartes,
Machiavelli and Bacon, among others, started examining the not only theological assumptions
but the very concepts of morality and ethics advocated by the Church. Isaiah Berlin in The
Divorce between the Sciences and the Humanities discusses this trend at length:
As everyone knows, the great triumphs of natural science in the seventeenth century gave the proponents of the
scientific method immense prestige. The great liberators of the age were Descartes and Bacon, who carried
opposition to the authority of tradition, faith, dogma or prescription into every realm of knowledge and opinion,
armed with weapons used during the Renaissance and, indeed, earlier.

However, Martin Luthers contribution in this context was unparalleled. He single-handedly

challenged the authority of the Church and faced excommunication which to the populace was a
fate worse than being burnt at the stake by the Spanish Inquisition. In spite of the tremendous
social, political and religious upheaval, Berlin states that there was much cautious avoidance of
open defiance of Christian belief. Luther, on the other hand, challenged one of the most
powerful institutions in the history of mankind, one that was as formidable as the Roman Empire
which it had replaced.

Any rationalist or positivist will unequivocally hail the Renaissance as the greatest advancement
in human progress. Unfortunately, it was also the first instance in history which caused an
enduring rupture in two branches of knowledge. One could assert that it was the refusal of the
Catholic Church to adapt to the rapid pace of knowledge brought about by the profusion of
classical texts that percolated through to the masses that resulted in this outcome. Unarguably,
the rupture was initially due to the inability of religious doctrine to incorporate the scientific
methodology, but eventually knowledge moved out of the purview of religious authorities and at
least put on the facade of secularism. However, mainstream education which no longer had direct
ties to the Catholic Church continued to be dominated by religious attitudes. Surprisingly, this
propensity was most pronounced in England, the harbinger of progress, till as late as the 19th
century. Peter Barry in Beginning Theory depicts this startling contradiction:

To explain the rise of English studies we need to indicate briefly what higher education was like in England until
the first quarter of the nineteenth century. The short answer is that it was a Church of England monopoly. There
were only two universities, Oxford and Cambridge. These were divided into small individual colleges which were
run like monastic institutions. Only men could attend them, of course, and students had to be Anglican
communicants and attend the college chapel. The teachers were ordained ministers, who had to be unmarried, so that
they could live in the college. The subjects available were the classics (ancient Greek and Latin literature), divinity
(which was taken by those seeking ordination) and mathematics. Anyone who was Catholic, Jewish, or Methodist,
or atheist was barred from entry, and hence, in effect, barred from the professions and the Civil Service. As far as
higher education was concerned, then, you could say that right up to the 1820s, the organisation of higher education
had not changed since the Middle Ages.
Many attempts were made to reform the situation, expand higher education, and introduce practical subjects into the
curriculum, but they all came up against entrenched conservative forces. The breakthrough came in 1826 when a
University College was founded in London with a charter to award degrees to men and women of all religions or
none.

Quite surprisingly, even Newton, the then President of the Royal Society, was apprehensive
about publishing anything that would contradict religious doctrines even though he spared no
effort to decimate Leibnizs reputation through a series of covert schemes, thus proving that even
the greatest scientific minds are susceptible to the most primeval human impulses. Darwins
Theory of Evolution did shake the very foundations of Christian, and by extension, all other
theologies, but he was not really hailed as the greatest naturalist in human history overnight, the
way Einstein was applauded after his Theory of General Relativity was proved by Eddingtons
observations.

By the middle of the 20th century, the sciences and philosophy suffered a decisive infringement
in which the former enjoyed unparalleled and unprecedented adulation and the latter was
relegated to obscurity as part of the humanities whose relevance was being questioned. This rift
between the humanities and natural sciences is highlighted in C. P. Snows The Two Cultures
and the Scientific Revolution:

I believe the intellectual life of the whole of Western society is increasingly being splits into two polar groups...
Literary intellectuals at one pole at the other scientists, and as the most representative, the physical scientists.
Between the two a gulf of mutual incomprehension sometimes (particularly among the young) hostility and
dislike, but most of all lack of understanding.

It is quite discernible that principles and methodology of a particular discipline are intertwined
much the same way intellectual culture and political influence are interrelated. Taking up the
first two characteristics, it might be an oversimplification to state that the former's objective is
the pursuit of subjective reality and the latter's is the quest for objective, irrefutable and timeless
truths. Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Born, Schrdinger all had strong convictions even before their
theories were verified. This calls into question the epistemological tradition of the natural
sciences which often manifests itself in the conviction that is so vehemently advocated by
scientists. Most of them never cease to proclaim their belief that their principles and
methodology are devoid of subjective considerations. Often scientists themselves have had to
face considerable condescension from their peers before they were able to establish the veracity
of their theories. Einsteins relentless efforts to disprove quantum theory seem quite incredulous
and ironic considering that a two decades prior to his sustained duel with Bohr, he sought to
displace the canon of classical physics.

A relatively recent occurrence of such a paradoxical attitude among scientists is that of Linus
Paulings invective against Dan Shechtmans work on quasicrystals for which the latter received
the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2011. Pauling who was the head of the research group not only
asked Shechtman to go back and read the textbook but also compelled him to leave the group
for bringing disgrace to the team. What is even more surprising is that Pauling was one of the
foremost scientists of the twentieth century, the only scientist other than Marie Curie to win the
Nobel Prize twice for his contributions in two different fields. Ironically, the major advances in
natural sciences, and especially in theoretical physics, would have been quite difficult without
'thought experiments'3 or philosophizing about the basic nature of the cosmos. In fact, his two
most famous aphorisms God is subtle but he is not malicious and God does not play dice with
the universe present a man with a strong philosophical convictions a charge that he would
have boisterously denied.4

In the humanities, traditionally, subjectivity has been welcomed and scholars and intellectuals
are far less apologetic about flaunting their predilection for creative subjectivity. Rather, each
seeks to stamp ones personality on ones philosophy or literary works. The extent to which this
subjectivity is acceptable depends on the zeitgeist or time-spirit of the age. From Platos idea of
forms, Aristotle's defence of poets, to Descartes substance dualism which was presented for the
first time in Discourse on Method and even the conception of Nietzsche's the Superman which
was adumbrated in Thus Spake Zarathustra and subsequently fleshed out in The Antichrist, most
works of philosophy, social or literary theory are manifestations of the time-spirit of the age
through the subjective persona of the poet or philosopher.

It was precisely this subjectivity that the proponents of positivism tried to root out.
Consequently, during the Enlightenment, the conflict between the sciences and the humanities
reached its zenith. As Isaiah Berlin points out:
There were invasions and counter-invasions; grammar, rhetoric, jurisprudence, philosophy, made forays into the
fields of historical learning and natural knowledge, and were attacked by them in turn.

This was primarily because theoretical knowledge was still conceived as one undivided realm;
the frontiers between philosophy, science, criticism, theology, were not sharply drawn. In fact,
the positivists went so far as to claim that they could create a logically appropriate language
the language of the mathematical and physical sciences which according to Leibniz would be
not unlike the general science of discovery. This conviction percolated through to the creative
arts as well in the attempt to remove all kinds of artifice and poetic diction in language and
instead to make it as plain as possible. The plays of Racine and Moliere and the verse of La
Fontaine and Boileau were examples of such a hackneyed style in verse. Pascal, who was one of
the foremost scientists of the time sought to accomplish something similar in prose. The
endeavour of the positivists seems understandable, and, to a certain extent, effective. However, it
raises important philosophical questions.

The auto-corrective methodology and the rationalist ideology of the Enlightenment were indeed
necessary to vitiate the authority of regressive religious institutions. But was the language of
science a suitable alternative to the cultural and anthropological structure of language? In Art
and Science, Sian Ede eloquently writes:

Scientists may be to able to explain how the brain works in terms of mapping the cortex or understanding synaptic
connection-making or the function of neurotransmitters, but they cannot convey how experience feels the way it
does to us as individuals. Nevertheless, current endeavours to understand the actual matter of mind and
consciousness increasingly show it to be depersonalised. How far can we claim to possess a unique sense of self, of
individuality, or identity, if so many of our mental processes are innate or automatic?

3
The phrase often used in connection with Einstein
4
He turned away from philosophy. (Conversations with Solovine and Manifesto in Journal of Philosophy.)
She delves deeper and traces the epistemological rift between the arts and the sciences:

On one hand is the view that there is an implicit reality out there waiting to be discovered, independent of the
observers mental state, as very many scientists maintain. On the other hand is the idea that reality is all or at least
partly a construction of the human mind, phenomenologically and linguistically determined and therefore unfixed,
and whether we are aware of it or not, viewed in accordance with the prevailing values and beliefs of particular
times and places. How far can we say that objects possess an intrinsic meaning beyond that derived from the way we
utilise them or have beliefs about them? Is knowledge dispassionate and absolute, or forever ambiguously dependent
on the slippery meanings we give to words?

It is quite discernible that the debate between scientists and philosophers5 are destined to
continue but for the moment scientists have the upper hand. In the field of education, be it at the
primary, secondary, undergraduate or graduate level, the natural sciences have gained
considerable leverage over the humanities and philosophy, in particular. The Natural Sciences
seem far more accessible at least at the school level compared with the humanities. Mostly
students who are deficient in the natural sciences and mathematics opt for the humanities and at
the undergraduate level those left without any option in the humanities and social sciences, often
to their chagrin, opt for philosophy. There is almost a feudal hierarchy starting at the top from
the students majoring in natural sciences and mathematics, followed by economics, commerce
and finance, and ending at the bottom with those pursuing the humanities and the social sciences.
Perhaps, philosophy occupies an even lower rung of the ladder. This ostracization of the student
is the consequence of the alienation of the student in the humanities at the primary level. The
natural sciences are a mandatory part of curriculum and the social sciences dont appear till the
student has already reached the secondary level and by then he or she feels completely alienated
from these myriad disciplines.

This alienation has also resulted from the political influence exerted by natural scientists going
back to the Enlightenment. The Royal Society took the conscious decision to enforce a dogmatic
rationalism in their methodology and even in the nature of language it employed for discussions.
Its philosophy was strictly one of rational materialism and any kind of metaphysical
generalization was avoided like the plague. A more recent manifestation of this attitude among
natural scientists is the appeal signed by the likes of Einstein, Freud, Mach and Hilbert in The
Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, Vol. 9, No. 16 (August 1, 1912):

To be sure, there has grown up from the soil of natural science itself a strictly empirical and positivistic point of
view quite indifferent to metaphysical speculation and to so-called critical, transcendental doctrines...

Those who take an interest in these progressive inquiries will find it to their advantage to have a scientific
association which shall declare itself opposed to all metaphysical undertakings, and have for its first principle the
strictest and most comprehensive ascertainment of facts in all fields of research and in the development of
organization and technique. All theories and requirements are to rest exclusively on this ground of facts and find
here their ultimate criterion.

The political alignments of the twentieth century which led to the creation of international
economic organizations furthered the influence exercised by rationalists and materialists.

5
In this essay, the term philosophers has not been used in the narrow sense of someone not merely pursuing
philosophy in an academic environment but rather as someone exploring past and present developments in
philosophy.
Governments and international institutions decided that progress is not possible without
incorporating such a positivistic approach. However, the materialists grew stronger and
transformed rationalism into a rigid materialism. Their objective was not to be inclusive but
exclusive in furthering their own interests. This was especially prevalent in the spheres of trade
and commerce. Adam Smiths myopic theory played an extremely pivotal role in propagating
such beliefs. The central thesis of his economic theory is as follows:

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic
industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily
labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to
promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of
foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce
may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an
invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it
was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when
he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public
good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in
dissuading them from it.

Conspicuously, John Harsanyi in Morality and the Theory of Rational Behaviour echoes the
concept of preference utilitarianism which, he says, owes its origin to Smith. Harsanyi defines
his theory as:

...the only form of utilitarianism consistent with the important philosophical principle of preference autonomy. By
this I mean the principle that, in deciding what is good and what is bad for a given individual, the ultimate criterion
can only be his own wants and his own preferences.

The basic tenet of preference materialism was followed by several monarchies and after their
downfall by democratic governments and dictatorships on a national and international level with
every institution trying to further its own economic power, which was inextricably linked
political influence. This was also an attribute of all religious institutions since the dawn of
civilization. It is a significant phenomenon in itself but for now the focus remains the extension
of preference materialism into the domain of the individual. The Industrial Revolution made this
possible. Snow takes the literary intellectuals to tasks for failing to consider that the Industrial
Revolution did not just breed materialistic and utilitarian propensities but also provided
opportunities for those at the lower socio-economic strata6 to improve their standard of living.

Perhaps Snows censure is not without justification but the very premise of Smiths argument is
convincingly refuted by Durkheim. He had an almost prophetic vision of moral corruption in an
industrial society. In Professional Ethics and Civic Morals he quite literarily questions the
fundamental assumptions of classical economics:

If we follow no rule except that of a clear self-interest, in the occupations that take up nearly the whole of our time,
how should we acquire a taste for any disinterestedness, or selflessness or sacrifice?...

6
Snow confines his discussion to economic betterment. However, social and economic conditions after the start of
the Industrial Revolution became interrelated and interdependent and hence the term socio-economic is more
appropriate.
It is therefore extremely important that economic life should be regulated, should have its moral standards raised, so
that the conflicts that disturb it have an end, and further, that individuals should cease to live thus within a moral
vacuum where the lifeblood drains away even from individual morality.

His prescience has proved to be accurate on several occasions. The economic recession of the
previous decade was the result of unmitigated avarice and rampant corruption in large financial
institutions. Their short-sightedness has not only affected financial and commercial institutions
but also the academic disciplines. The most noticeable fallout has been the funding cuts for the
sciences and humanities but the humanities have had to face proportionately far greater cuts than
the natural sciences have had to reckon with. The budget for humanities research has been
progressively reduced to the point that various organizations have had to deal with shortage of
academic personnel and resources. Major academic bodies such as the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences, Arts Council UK and the European Commissioner for Research and
Net4Society (funded by the European Union) have consistently been expressing their concerns,
mostly in vain, about this worrisome trend.

The contribution of corporate organizations to further aggravate matters in this regard has not
been insubstantial. Every corporate organization has one ultimate goal and that is making profit
by advancing the self-interest of its stakeholders. Like the decision-makers in political bodies
and government organizations, even they realize that greater innovation can lead to higher
profits. They do patronize the arts but, in doing so, they fulfil another, more subtle, agenda
creation of an image of social responsibility, a well-thought out but unabashedly devious
marketing strategy. Corporates have increased their hold over government organizations and, in
turn, affected national and international policy decisions. If it was the political rivalries of
despotic democratic as well as communist regimes which brought the human race to the brink of
extinction in the twentieth century, it will be the indiscriminate greed of corporate organization
which will pose the greatest challenge to human life and society in the twenty first century. This
threat prevails because for the first time in the history of mankind, the pace of technological (and
industrial) progress has outpaced our growth as a society.7 We have weapons powerful enough at
our disposal which could cause catastrophe or at least set us back by centuries. Logically, such
powerful weapons should not exist in a fragmented society such as ours. The fact that corporate
control over political and social institutions continues to increase is enough reason to be
apprehensive about the future of the human race.

There is, however, a solution to the impending crisis, which might raise its ugly head in the next
few decades. The situation can be mitigated and ultimately resolved by questioning the most
fundamental assumption of scientists and philosophers. Are philosophy and science mutually
incompatible? Plato believed that the best form of government would be carried out by a
philosopher-statesman. His conception of the philosopher-statesman was an ascetic who was
completed devoted to knowledge and governance. He belonged to the age of antiquity when
there was no distinction between a scientist and a philosopher. Perhaps a more suitable term in
the contemporary scenario would be a philosopher-scientist. Positivists will not hesitate to
claim that the world would be safe in the custody of a scientist without a profound knowledge
and understanding of philosophy, but a scientists uninhibited zeal for scientific enquiry would
not necessarily make for judicious policy-making. If the plan for the Superconducting Super

7
Michio Kaku Hyperspace
Collider (SSC) is anything to go by, which was scrapped even after an investment of $ 2 billion,
physicists dont always take an objective point of view to a situation. Undoubtedly, the
completion of the project would have led to major breakthroughs in science but at a time when
the United States was still reeling from budget deficits, the investment of such an astronomical
sum for probable scientific discoveries was not beyond reproach.

A scientist whose ambitions of discovering a quantum theory of gravity to decipher the

conditions during the moment of creation or the Big Bang is mitigated by a philosophical
perspective about the political and social implications of such efforts will be able to fulfil the role
of the philosopher-scientist. Does this imply that philosophers will merely serve as vehicles to
broaden the horizon for natural scientists while they are themselves deprived of the opportunity
to contribute towards social progress? The answer lies in the very reintegration of the two
disciplines in itself. Not only will natural scientists have the opportunities to indulge in
philosophical speculations (a term that is quite often used in a derogatory way), but even
philosophers will be able to gain insight into the mysterious working of the universe. Hence, a
revival of the humanities and, in particular, philosophy is imminent. Such a development is
indispensable to human progress. If we are to regain our momentum of social evolution in order
to keep pace with scientific progress, philosopher-scientists have to enter the arena of political
governance like gladiators because there is no possibility that individuals and corporations with
vested interests will give up their positions amicably. In fact, they might even prefer self-
destruction or even social destruction to their displacement from positions of power.
Philosopher-scientists will have to use all their knowledge and erudition of not just scientific
principles but also of politics and human psychology if they are to confront this problem. The
question remains: when will philosophers and scientists come down from their ivory towers and
face this daunting challenge?

At present, the two disciplines are extremely fragmented to facilitate the growth and
development of philosopher-scientists. There has to be a paradigm-shift at the level of groups or
schools of philosophers and scientists in academia to aid the emergence of a discipline that will
reintegrate the sciences and the humanities. In order for this to happen, scientists as well as
philosophers will have to broaden their knowledge to ensure an interdisciplinary exchange of
dialogue, ideas and pedagogical as well as epistemological methodology. This is an intimidating
challenge in itself and needless to say that there will be scholars and thinkers on both sides who
will vehemently oppose such initiatives due to the realization that they will not be able to adapt
to the reintegration. But, even a handful of meritorious and dedicated individuals who will be
able to carry forward the transition should be able to accomplish the objective. The
crosspollination is inevitable. It is the pace at which the crosspollination occurs which will be a
decisive factor in our social evolution. There have already been numerous indications from major
scientists to adopt a more balanced approach to philosophical questions. Science popularisers,
such as Sagan, Kaku, Hawking, Frank Close and Brian Greene, have already done their part to
promote not just science but also to adopt a less rigid stance with respect to the philosophy of
science. It is time literary intellectuals8 proved their mettle by refusing to shrink from exploring
the finer details of our existence in the universe.

8
For the purpose of this essay, no distinction has been made between a philosopher and a literary intellectual.
There are sharp differences in the academic disciplines but the aptitude for imagination, creativity and reasoning
Scientists and even mathematicians no longer confine themselves to adopting theories that
acquire their validity through demonstration. This has also acted as an impetus for the profusion
of speculative theories which scientists hope will someday provide an answer to the various
questions related to the moment of creation or even earlier events related to the history of the
universe. Some of these theories have profound philosophical implications and have even led to
the expounding of ontological concepts such as the weak anthropic principle and the strong
anthropic principle in the study of cosmology. There are a substantial number of thinkers such as
Karl Popper, Alfred North Whitehead, Edmund Husserl and Bertrand Russell who were
mathematics scholars but then decided to delve into the philosophical implications of their
works. Their works encompassed philosophical ideas and approaches such as phenomenological
reductionism, analytic philosophy, process philosophy and critical rationalism.

Literary intellectuals already have their hands full in attempting to prevent the egregious funding
cuts and the shortcomings of obsolete and narrow approaches to the discipline. This will be a
cause for concern in the short run but in the long run they should be able to bring themselves up
to speed with the currents of crosspollination between the humanities and the natural sciences.
When that happens, a new era of social and intellectual progress will be ushered in, leading to
far-ranging positive repercussions for the progress of the human race.

are fundamental prerequisites for both disciplines. The philosopher and the literary intellectual are capable of
achieving the objective of effecting a reintegration of the sciences and the humanities.