source |
Santayana’s neat and pointed explanation as to why knowledge cultures need breadth. Science as usually understood is incomplete in
this respect, as are all specialisms.
A consequence of this
incoherence in experience is that science is not absolutely single but springs
up in various places at once, as a certain consistency or method becomes
visible in this or that direction.
These independent
sciences might, conceivably, never meet at all; each might work out an entirely
different aspect of things and cross the other, as it were, at a different
level.
This actually happens,
for instance, in mathematics as compared with history or psychology, and in
morals as compared with physics. Nevertheless, the fact that these various
sciences are all human, and that here, for instance, we are able to mention
them in one breath and to compare their natures, is proof that their spheres
touch somehow, even if only peripherally.
Since common
knowledge, which knows of them all, is itself an incipient science, we may be
sure that some continuity and some congruity obtains between their provinces.
Some aspect of each must coincide with some aspect of some other, else nobody
who pursued any one science would so much as suspect the existence of the rest.
Great as may be the
aversion of learned men to one another, and comprehensive as may be their
ignorance, they are not positively compelled to live in solitary confinement,
and the key of their prison cells is at least in their own pocket.
George Santayana - The Life of Reason
2 comments:
All roads lead to Rome, does the subject fit the student or the student fit the subject? Suppose the 'Standard Model' were tidied up then all geographers and social scientists could start their studies there. Alternatively the cosmologists and hadron hunters could start their studies with newt counting. Simples, make degree courses 20 years long.
Roger - or we could insist that politicians do something worthwhile and educational for 20 years first. A PPE degree wouldn't count.
Post a Comment