The Two Culture

C.P. Snow

The Two Cultures is the title of the first part of an influential 1959 Rede Lecture by British scientist and novelist C. P. Snow. Its thesis was that “the intellectual life of the whole of western society” was split into the titular two cultures — namely the sciences and the humanities — and that this was a major hindrance to solving the world’s problems.

C .P. Snow says he had been thinking of a problem since last three years and anyone who had some experiences like him would think similarly. Snow is talking about the conflict between science and literature .C. P. Snow was a physicist who is known for his literary contributions.

Snow was a scientist at a time of major scientific activity. He was also a writer who had many friends who belonged to the literary circle. The close association with scientists and literary figures gave him a realization that both of them had their own culture. But C. P. Snow is of the opinion that scientist and humanists have comparable intelligence, identical in race, similar social origins, earn comparable wages but one hates the other. This conflict between science and humanities is not the problem of England alone but of the West. To show the hostility between science and humanities Snow, quotes a story of A.L. Smith (a literary figure) when he came to Cambridge to dine, could not understand what his fellow mates were talking and the Vice-Master explained that they were mathematicians whom the humanists did not make friends with.

Snow observes that the intellectual life of the western society is divided into two polar groups -one literary intellectuals and the other group-scientists . Snow remembers what once G.H. Hardy remarked that the word intellectual is used to refer only literary intellectuals and it does not include scientists. The hostility between the two groups has increased and the youth particularly fails to communicate and both have distorted image of the other.

Non–scientists believe that scientists are less optimistic, unaware of man’s condition. They think that scientists are brash and boastful. Literary intellectuals follow what T.S. Eliot, a typical figure in English literature says about reviving verse-drama which is of little hope. Eliot will be contented if his followers could prepare the ground for a new Kyd or Greene. Scientists believe that literary intellectuals talk in a restricted and constrained way. On the other hand scientists believe that literary intellectuals lack foresight, they are unconcerned about fellow beings, anti-intellectual and that they restrict literature to existentialism (a condition, or school of literature which believes that life is meaningless). Snow is of the opinion that it is hard for the literary intellectuals to understand intellectually and gives an example:

‘this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper’ (the Hollow Man- T.S. Eliot)

Scientists believe that literature can be made by anyone who has a little ability to chat. Snow agrees that scientists are optimistic. Scientists work as a group and the group energy is carried on to everyone. They are aware of poverty and other human miseries and are determined to work for it. But literary intellectuals do not work for fellow beings and are hated by scientists.

The non-scientists believe that the scientists are shallowly optimistic and their optimism is based on a lack of understanding of man’s real condition. This can be easily disproved. The scientists are aware of the tragic condition of the individual. Each of us lives alone and dies alone. Thers is no way out of this solitariness of human life. But the scientist sees no reason why the social condition of a man should also be tragic. Most of our fellow human beings for instance are underfed and consequently meet with premature death. The scientists believe that something can be done about this and therein lies his optimism. But this very optimism of the scientist has made him look down upon the attitude of other culture. He believes that literary intellectuals are inclined to sit back and let things go as they are.

Some scientists have criticized the social and political attitudes of literary figures. An eminent scientist once asked Snow why most writers take on social opinions which would have been considered uncivilized even at the time of Plantagenets. In his view Yeats, Pound, Wyndham Lewis and nine out of ten of those who ruled the literary world were not only politically silly but also politically wicked. The influences of such men were responsible for World War II. Snow was aware that Yeats was a magnanimous character besides being a great poet. But he could not deny the fact that there is a connection which the writers were unable to see between the early twentieth century art and expressions and anti-social feeling. This induced some of the writers to turn their backs on the art and tried to cut out a new or different way for them. Snow argues that this is partially true and this has resulted in people losing faith in literature. Some sociologists argue that they are not to be grouped with humanists as some disciplines of humanities have scientific approach.

Snow says that the number 2 is a dangerous number. Any attempt to divide anything into two always gives rise to suspicion. The author points out that scientist need not and donot completely understand each other, but there are common attitudes, common standards and patterns of behavior, common approaches and assumptions which go wide and deep cutting across the mental patterns like religion or politics or class. The division of knowledge into science and humanities is faulty. Snow argues that a botanist having little knowledge of physics is termed as a scientist but a humanist does not belong to the group. Though scientists and humanists see them as different groups there are so many common features for them. But the distinctions between science and humanities have become so large that scientists have no taste for literature and literary figures do not even learn the basic science. This polarization has created intolerance between the two.

This polarization is a practical, intellectual and creative loss to society. During the war C.P. Snow got an opportunity to interview about 25% the scientists in Britain. The extent of their reading shocked him. Some they seem to regard Dickens as an incomprehensible writer like R.M. Rilke. One of them preferred to use his books as tools! They have nothing to do with books. They have their own rigorous and admirable culture.

As for the literary intellectuals they are equally impoverished. They look upon the traditional culture as the whole of “culture” and are contented with their ignorance of the marvels of science. They despise the scientists who have never had glimpse of the beauty of English literature. It does not occur to them that their own ignorance is even more startling. Not one in ten of them can understand what is meant by mass or acceleration or can describe second law thermodynamics.

The gulf between two cultures therefore cannot be bridged. The clashing point of two cultures often provides a fertile soil for creative production and such chances are lost on account of this polarization. Twentieth century science can find no place in twentieth century art. Poets make vain attempt to use scientific expression and thus we find “polarized light” used for a remarkable kind of light. Unless science becomes part and parcel of our mental experience we cannot say that it is of any good to art.

In England this cultural division is caused mainly by their educational specialization. But in spite of this division Lord Salisbury, the prime minister had his own laboratory. Arthur Balfour and John Anderson are other such professional non-scientists who took a keen interest in science. Snow points out that in England school education is too specialized .This will increase the conflict between science and humanities. The U.S.S.R has detected problems in specialized school education and has changed their education system. Snow wants a change in the England schooling system which is specialized educations that distinguishes science from humanities and places them in opposite poles.

Public Knowledge

Public Knowledge

J.M. Ziman

Science is an integral part of our life. It furnishes our surroundings. “What is science” is a confusing question. We know the evolution of science and its development through numerous scientists. Its difficult to define poetry, as poetry has no definition and a poet is a person who assumes the crown of a poet by himself. Contrary to it science is methodical and logical. Its very hard and finite and an essential ingredient for human’s survival.

Like religion, art, philosophy, law etc. science is also a discipline of study. It is a set of ideas. Science is an intellectual activity. Religion, art and literature appeals to human emotions and it is difficult to express them in words as they affect the emotionality of humans. So all these forms are different from science. How Science is different from Humanities is a debated topic.

The crudest definition for science is “science is the masteryof Man’s environment”. This definition projects the discoveries of Science that will ensure material and mechanical aid to human society. But this definition has its drawbacks. Here science becomes synonym (equal to) technology. This definition talks of the applications of science or testifies for the discoveries and inventions in science. Science like mathematics and cosmology interprets the mysteries of the universe. Any invention or discovery is an application of a theory of science. It is like a food item prepared from a recipe. For example- Penicillin is like a building made from the blueprints of architect named science.

The popular definition of science is that “Science is the study of material world”. By this definition we mean that science is the study of matter and religion is the study of the spirit. This differentiation between science and Religion is faulty as psychology and sociology are subjects of science that points to topics beyond the physical matter. It is true that spiritual questions cannot be answered through Science. But there are similarities between religion and science. Pure mathematics goes beyond the definition of Science. Religion explores a set of hypothesis (what we call belief in religion) to reach conclusions but these hypotheses like in science have no solid proofs.

Science uses the experimental method. Francis Bacon talks of the importance of evidence in science. The scientific method is an objective method to explore the secrets of nature. Scientists begin from a hypothesis, experiment with tools, make an inference, search for evidences and reach a conclusion. Science arrives at truth by logical inferences from empirical observations. There is no ultimate truth in science. Science is always in the process of evolution. It is not easy to reach a conclusion in science. A fact is accepted as ‘truth’ in science if any experiment done on the same grounds assume the same result from similar circumstances every time the experiment is repeated. A theory should be universally accepted to be called a scientific discovery. Science is objective and should give an ultimate result for a particular question. Thus science is a method to attain ultimate truth.

Conventional definition of science explains it as an individual’s attempt to define the secrets of nature. Science is not an individual activity but a cooperate action of numerous scientists of various ages. Thus scientific research is a social activity like law. But Technology, art and religion is an individual’s field where an individual can contribute. Scientists work in an organized manner, pass information and contribute to the system of science.

Professor J.M Ziman argues that scientists contribute to the consensus of universally accepted knowledge. He explains the philosophical, psychological and sociological contributions of science. He calls science a group activity evolved from the hard work of numerous scientists of various centuries.

The Need for Studies in the History of Science

 

The Need for Studies in History of Science

Sushil Kumar Mukherjee

The course on History of Science was launched in 1994 by the Asiatic society as the result of the attempts made by late Samarendra Nath Sen, an Indian historian of science. The writer, Professor Sushil Kumar Mukhejee tries to find answer to the question Why we should learn the history of science. Science unlike many other phenomenons has a continuous growth. Science has brought revolutionary changes in world order.

A scientific revolution enabled mankind to get out of the feudal system. With industrial revolution, science assumed a high position as the most productive force of society. Science thus became powerful than political and economical forces. John Bernal, an Irish scientist states, “If capitalism made science possible, Science in its turn was to make capitalism unnecessary.”

By 17th century, science made a new world order. Aristotle’s world was replaced by Newton’s world. Though industrial revolution was a result of scientific revolution, there was a slowing down of science after industrial revolution as industries concentrated in certain locations. At the initial stage of revolution the contribution to science was nominal. The steam engine was a great contribution of the period. Later, industries demanded more and more. The spirit of science led to exchange of information between scientists to improve and develop the quality of the products.

Unlike Europe, countries like Babylonia, Egypt, China, India, Greece and Arabia have a much earlier history of scientific activities. History of science in India after the Harappan civilization was that of the Vedic people. During the Post-Vedic period there emerged Ayurveda and industries such as ceramics, iron, glass and agriculture also made rapid progress.

During 400-900 A.D., different branches of science such as mathematics, astronomy, medicine, chemistry, alchemy, atomism, agriculture etc. made great progress. During medieval period astronomy, mathematics, medicine etc. made progress. Both China and India made wonderful inventions long before scientific revolution. But modern science did not develop in these countries. The mystery behind this will only be answered if we learn the history of the social conditions of these countries.

Greeks and Babylonians too have great history of science. But these cultures could not contribute to modern science. The culture, myths and historical and philosophical aspects contributed to this. Europeans concentrated on the laws of nature. Japanese believed that science and technology was aimed at material progress. Japanese aimed at developing physical and applied science and not biological science. They were not concerned with philosophical and theoretical details where as Europe was. Japanese considered science as a political faculty rather than a cultural system.

Islamic civilization used science for regulation of religious functions. They concentrated on astronomy and geography to regulate their prayers and religious practices. Looking at the history of science we can see that science do not have a linear progression. It developed in various cultures at various time periods. Greeks owe their development to Babylonians and Egyptians and Indian science contributed to the scientific spirit of Arabians and they spread science in Europe.

Science has duality. There is scientific aspect of science-experimentation, observation and verification-the subjectivity and universality of science. There other aspect of science is the cultural, economic and political forces that contribute to science. The development of a particular branch of science in preference to another, should science be used as a source of power either for oneself or for dominating over others etc. depends on the society’s will. The progress of science depends an social, cultural, philosophical, religious, economical and political factors.

Joseph Needham, a historian of Chinese Science, Technology and Medicine, in his foreword to D.P Chattopadhyaya’s “Science and Technology in Ancient India” wrote that there are attempts made to free science from religious and societal laws. But Needham commented that today ethics is needed more than ever in science irrespective of one’s attitude to religion.

John Bernal points out that capitalism prevented science from being used for human Progress. Science is used for destruction, pollution, genetic engineering, loss of privacy through information banks etc. Science is an inevitable part of civilization. During wars new sciences developed. This raises the question whether wars are needed for the progress of science. The study of the history of science can possibly answer many questions on the development of science and hence history of science should be studied with due respect.

The Actuality of the History of Sciences

THE ACTUALITY OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCES

 

Gaston Bachelard talks of the progress of science. When we learn the history of science we talk of the history of ideas. There is never decadence of intelligence but there is decadence of nation, people and culture. Sometimes a badly utilized scientific thought can cause stagnation. Sometimes a theory would be forgotten and years later would be explained with further evidence. There is no absolute truth but various experiments are needed to reach a conclusion in science. There is a course of development of science – change of Cartesian world (where there is clear separation between subject and object) to the modern world order where the subject and object are part of a system. Thus study of the history of science helps to gain deep knowledge of modern science.

It’s fascinating to note the progress of science. When we enter the Palais de la Decouverte,(a science museum located in Grand. Palais, Paris) which contains permanent exhibits of Mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry etc. one wonders whether coming to see the past inventions is a crime. Some times history of science is learned for curiosity as a relaxed investigation to have a knowledge of past.

This essay, the Actually of Sciences, talks of the positive effects scientific thoughts can contribute to contemporary society.History of science is different from all other histories. We don’t think of decadenceof scientific thought. But we talk of decadence of a people, nation or culture. When civilizations decline there is stagnation of knowledge, due to deterioration in customs intellectual and moral poverty. Science as we know can have periods of inactivity. A badly utilized scientific thought can be a cause of stagnation. During periods of general regression truth awaits renaissance. For a historian this is the end of particular line research from which a new line of research begins. Sometimes a particular line of thought can remain dormant until it rejuvenates to form a new idea. History of science always talks of progress of human civilization.

When we talk of decadence, science never declines but it enters another axis ofthought.  It adds to the knowledge of the reader. Sometimes a particular theory eg.the decline of Cartesian physics caused the progress of scientific  thought which discovered Newtonian physics.

Unlike Science, the history of art is a simple myth. The historian of art highlights the worth of a primitive art which has a perfection of the first attempt.In the history of philosophy too the idea of progress is incorrect. In political history what appears as progress to one historian may bedecline for another. In science we can find absolute positivity. There can be no decadence because any failure to stick to truth is an error. History of science therefore says of growth or it has nothing to say. Unlike other historians a historian of science has to judge the value of thoughts and scientific discoveries. He makes the readers realize the value of new thoughts.

The historian of science must know the present to judge the past. This is the strong link of the history of science with the actuality of science. It is the present that illuminates the past in science, as Brianchon’s theorem enlightened the mystery of Pascal’s hexagram. Leon Brunschvicg stated  the past exist for us, not for them.As Socrates has already professed “ knowing is being capable of teaching”.

Brunschvicg warns the historian of science that facts should be unfolded with a history of the unfolding of values.

Then author says about Ingen- H ouz explains how salt peter composed of potash and an acid called nitrous doesnot contain any fiery principle. Carbon which is the second ingredient of gun powder is not in the least dangerous. He estimates rightly that salt peter is a source of dephlogisticated air (oxygen). He thinks wrongly carbon is a source of inflammable gas (hydrogen).The mixture of these two catches fire with violence at the approach of fire.

The author holds the opinion that the history of sciences cannot be an empirical history because the history of sciences cannot be described merely by the crumbs of facts, for it is the history of progress of rational linkages of knowledge. Besides the link of cause to effect there is a link of reason to consequence in the history of science.

Scientific culture should be integrated into general culture. Every one is interested in the history of great intellectuals like Galelio and Kepler. Science has at present become socialized. The historian of science must make the present generation conscious of the human value of science today.

General History of Sciences

CHAPTER I

GENERAL HISTORY OF SCIENCES

Paul Tannery

Paul Tannery in his lecture written in the form of an introduction to a book, talks of the history of science, its significances, the need for general history and specific histories of sciences and how to synthesize history of science from the evidences available to us.

Science has been from its origin an essential factor of progress of human civilization. Hence it should be studied like the history of Art or history of Literature. But unlike other histories, history of science has not properly been studied. It’s difficult to find a historian of science as a scholar capable of explaining science as a whole is rare as scholars learn only specific histories needed for their topic. But there have been examples of same scientists trying to compose History of Science.

Tannery takes examples from French. Laplace’s “Exposition du systeme du monde” is an example. French Mathematician, Michel Chasles’s “Apercu historique sur origine et le development” is another example. Engine Marcellin Berthelot’s work on the origins of alchemy reveals to us an entirely unknown past. These examples prove that to be a good historian of science one should not only be a scholar but should devote oneself to history and develop a historical sensibility, one different from scientific sensibility. Special types of knowledges are necessary for a historian and this makes it difficult to compose history of Science. The scholar of science is interested only in particular history and they specialize only in their topics.

The pure historian who does not have a scientific temperament cannot thus make a general history of science. The philosopher who attempts to answer the have and why of science would want more technical details than a pure historian.Attempts have been made in France to compose the history and philosophy of science. When we search for the answer to the question, “What is the general history ofscience?”, we find that the various books on science cannot answer this.

Paul Tannery attempts to synthesis a history of science. Synthesis- etymologically means composition. Tannery attempts to create a general history of science through analysis or decomposition. He feels that a historian usually obtains the elements which he wishes to use following his own tastes and neglecting others. History should be independent of personal choice. When different chemicals combine we get various products according to the quality and quantity of the chemicals used. Likewise history of science should be composed in a balanced manner giving equal importance to all elements. Thus general history of science should be synthesized from specific histories which have taken raw materials from original sources. The specific histories of pure mathematics, astronomy and rational mechanics are sufficiently developed and medicine is studied but not history of physics, chemistry and biological sciences. Science is progressing rapidly and technology updates every second. So it is difficult to synthesis particular histories. It is faculty to generalize from the existing evidences. We need to verify them and reach conclusions. A historian should be aware of his composition and its demerits when composing a history. A history is an individual’s articulation. So a historian should be careful of his work. When selecting matter from a general source he should know that an original or ancient source has

1) General details about a topic that every person can understand

2) Special details intelligible to those who are familiar with the topics

But if a secondary source is used for composing history we know that the details are retold by another and would be less analytical than the original. Specific histories thus are formed of details needed to prove a scientific phenomenon, but a general history of science of a particular civilization arranged chronologically, explains the general history of a civilization.

General history of science would give a different perspective of science, a total view of science and its progress. In addition to the biographies of scientists, the ideas resulting in a discovery and the influences of intellectual, economical and social factors on science should also be topics of study.

General history would give a chronological order of arrangement of the development of human civilization and recreation of specific histories aims at reconstruction of history from a different view point. Thus study of general history of science and specific history of science are distinct.