Connecting humanists, naturalists in science<\/p>\n
By Mochtar Buchori<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): When Lord Snow's (C.P. Snow, 1905 -- 80) famous
\npaper The Two Cultures was published in 1959, the situation among
\nacademics must have been very, very bad.<\/p>\n
Lord Snow described how the humanists (the literary
\nintellectuals) and the naturalists (the scientists) were engulfed
\nin \"mutual incomprehension\", a situation made worse sometimes by
\ndislike and hostility, and most important of all by lack of
\nmutual understanding. They lived in two different worlds that
\nwere so much apart from one another that they even seemed to
\nspeak two different languages.<\/p>\n
How is the situation today?<\/p>\n
I think it has become much better. Although deep-rooted
\ndivisive issues still exist, the gap between the two has become
\nmuch narrower. Successive generations of humanists and
\nnaturalists succeeded in building bridges that connect the two
\nacademic communities.<\/p>\n
There are now a number of problems that attract the attention
\nand concern of both the humanists and the naturalists. Problems
\nrelated to issues of environment, refugees, hunger, drug
\ntrafficking, and cloning, to mention but a few, are now jointly
\naddressed by scholars from all kinds of academic disciplines.<\/p>\n
Still there are differences that cannot be bridged yet. Some
\ndifferences are so deep that no matter how hard academics try to
\nsolve them, misunderstandings still exist.<\/p>\n
Some scholars consider such problems as a challenge, while
\nothers consider them as evidence of the finality of their
\nqualitative divide.<\/p>\n
Does it make any difference to the public whether academic
\ncommunities exist as exclusive entities and dislike each other or
\nwhether they appreciate one another and collaborate to solve
\nproblems faced by mankind?<\/p>\n
I think it does make a great difference. We have only to take
\ninto cognizance a few big changes to recognize this fact.<\/p>\n
The green revolution for instance was initially hailed as the
\nultimate answer to the problem of chronic shortages of grain. It
\nwas greeted with jubilance by the entire world. Later, however,
\nresearch done by environmentalists revealed some negative
\neffects, unintended of course, that came with the green
\nrevolution.<\/p>\n
And we became more careful since that.<\/p>\n
Another example is globalization. Initially it was greeted
\nwith enthusiasm by nearly everybody, including economists,
\npolitical scientist, legal experts, and heads of governments.<\/p>\n
It was initially thought that globalization will bring benefit
\nto the rich and the poor alike. But later, after scholars
\nconcerned with the problem of eradicating poverty made closer
\nobservations in a number of countries affected by practices of
\nglobalization, it was found that globalization benefits primarily
\nthe rich industrial countries, while the gap between rich and
\npoor countries does not become narrower.<\/p>\n
We became more careful in understanding what globalization
\nreally means, and what prerequisites must be met before jumping
\ninto it. We became skeptical in a healthy way.<\/p>\n
A great number of other illustrations can be easily provided
\nto show that mutual appreciation and collaboration among
\nacademics will enhance the benefits of their work for mankind.<\/p>\n
The important point in this regard is in my view that
\nexclusive existence of any academic discipline becomes
\nincreasingly impossible and increasingly unwelcome.<\/p>\n
Another question that merits our attention is \"What made this
\nrapprochement between humanists and naturalists possible?\"<\/p>\n
I think it has been the continuous efforts by scholars to
\nrefine and expand their knowledge, and continuous publication of
\ntheir research findings that have been instrumental in narrowing
\nthe gap between the two sides.<\/p>\n
Research findings that are couched in a language that can be
\ncomprehended by nonspecialists and educated laymen alike will
\nmake it possible for nonspecialists to understand and appreciate
\nthe substance of the report. This in turn will make them
\nmotivated to move into domains outside their own, and this will
\nin the end increase their appreciation toward works done by
\nscholars outside their respective fields.<\/p>\n
To mention a personal example, if I may, reading an article
\nabout the biological bases of gender or sexuality completely
\nchanged my feelings and attitude towards gays and lesbians.
\nWhereas formerly I had a very strong prejudice against them,
\nafter reading Anne Fausto-Sterling's article in the July\/August
\n2000 edition of The Sciences, my prejudices vanished.<\/p>\n
Under the title The Five Sexes, Revisited, Professor Anne
\nFausto-Sterling wrote that the male -- female dichotomy is a
\nproduct of theorizing carried out at the idealized level.<\/p>\n
This theorizing overlooks many obvious caveats, like the fact
\nthat some women have facial hair, and some men have none; that
\nsome women speak with a deep voice, while some men practically
\n\"squeak\". The result of this theorizing is the division of human
\nbeings into two kinds of perfectly dimorphic species, men and
\nwomen, male and female.<\/p>\n
According to the author, absolute dimorphism disintegrates
\neven at the basic biological level. Evidence gathered so far show
\nthat seventeen out of every 1,000 children born (1.7 percent) are
\noutside the ideal dimorphic mold. They are neither perfect male
\nnor perfect female. They are called \"intersexuals.\"<\/p>\n
Three other types can be distinguished: namely hermaphrodites
\n(people born with both a testis and an ovary); male pseudo-
\nhermaphrodites (born with testes and some aspects of female
\ngenitalia; and female pseudohermaphrodites (people who have
\novaries combined with some aspects of male genitalia).<\/p>\n
I was further aghast by the author's report that among
\nintersexuals there are people whose emotional gender is at odds
\nwith their physical sex. These people feel themselves trapped in
\nthe body of the opposite sex, viz. as males trapped in female
\nbodies or vice versa.<\/p>\n
After reading this article I could not help asking myself, \"Is
\nit fair to judge these people with standards of morality that are
\ndrawn from the lives of perfect males and perfect females?\"<\/p>\n
If it is not fair to do so, what should the yardstick be to
\nmeasure the morality of their sexual conduct? I don't know, and
\nmy conclusion after pondering about this question is that we
\nshould never rush into judging someone about whom we have no
\nadequate knowledge. Let us be humble toward people who differ
\nfrom us.<\/p>\n
The writer is a social and educational observer based in
\nJakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/connecting-humanists-naturalists-in-science-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}