6 Answers

  1. A person interferes with the synthesis of natural sciences and humanities. Such a hindrance, scientists in many countries are thinking about how to eliminate it. They tried it with dust, they tried it with a nuclear bomb, and even genetically modified products and chemical additives don't help.

    Well, imagine that you've wasted the best years of your life to describe a sign language that never lies! And then some brute who read your work realized that these very gestures can be used to enrich themselves, or even worse, by specifically studying them and applying them when they need to. And so the question is, what do his gestures mean now completely different from what you say in your writings? And what should I do if I don't let anyone read it? Then what is this science that no one has ever heard of? It's not science, it's the devil knows what! However, maybe he doesn't know, and most likely the devil doesn't know either.

    So with a person, there can be no repeatability, no solid foundation. This is not natural for nature! That's how you think that a person is not a child of nature, but some kind of lost person by accident.

  2. It seems to me that this is a mistake of perception, maybe it comes from the USSR, maybe from somewhere else. So many times I heard at the university “why do we need philosophy, it's not useful at work!” . People mistakenly believe that there is necessary knowledge, and there is unnecessary. Often at work I meet that technical specialists do not have enough humanitarian knowledge, or here a girl-philologist talks about their educational processes – so there is generally a lot of everything that can be automated using code. People just think that diametrically opposite areas are alien in their profession, when, on the contrary, the most effective and non-standard solutions can be drawn from another field of activity.

  3. To begin with, such syntheses already existed a long time ago. In ancient times, there were no such clear boundaries. Many scientists of that time were also excellent philosophers (Archimedes, Euclid, Pythagoras, etc.).

    I would also like to say that now in our time people are divided into these two categories. I often heard from my friends that “humanitarians do not have a good command of mathematics”, and “it is difficult for techies to learn linguistics”. In fact, everything is a little different. It seems to me that people sometimes limit themselves, as if accepting that they will definitely not be able to master some knowledge. But aren't inventors the same dreamers?

    For example, the people who create new rockets are almost the same artists who paint a new picture. Yes, they have knowledge of physics and mathematics. But, for example, if people were strictly only technicians, would they be able to come up with a type of rocket?

    As a result, we can say that in some people the inclination to the humanities and natural sciences is greater than in others. This is normal, you can't kill two birds with one stone. But to achieve new discoveries or beautiful works, sometimes you need to try to master the knowledge of both categories. Yes, and you will be an educated and cultured person)

    “Science is ultimately the study of a miracle that we cannot explain, and art is the interpretation of that miracle.”
    – Ray Bradberry “The Martian Chronicles”

  4. I believe that these categories of science have fundamentally different goals. Roughly speaking, the natural sciences seek to know the world, while the humanities seek to understand how we can live in this world.

  5. I would say that this synthesis has been going on successfully for a long time. The humanities are sciences that specialize in a person as a person, simplifying, on his consciousness. From the behavioral side, this issue is studied by the humanities science of psychology. C) natural sciences such as neurology and neuroanatomy. Over the last hundred years, many disciplines have emerged that build a bridge between these two extremes: neurophysiology, cognitive neuroscience, neuropsychology, etc. Today, we simultaneously observe the behavior and activity of individual correlate neurons, and brain regions, trying to find correlations, correlates.
    � � � The question of what distinguishes humans from animals is highly debatable. But developed speech is one of the likely (though often criticized) answers. Work on a rigorous description of human languages, such a description that it has predictive power, is being carried out quite successfully. You can also observe this in practice, using translators or, say, voice assistants. There are much more theoretical results. Returning to the first point, the link between linguistics and neuroscience is extremely strong-just mention one of the most interesting scientific discussions – the hypothesis of linguistic relativity. https://elementy.ru/nauchno-populyarnaya_biblioteka/431410/Zhizn_i_sudba_gipotezy_lingvisticheskoy_otnositelnosti
    � � � The last thing I want to mention is experimental natural science methods in the service of the humanities. Not quite synthesis, but help. Radiocarbon dating? Electron microscopy studies of materials? Archaeology today is impossible to imagine without classical physical methods of analysis. Just like that.

  6. The natural sciences and the humanities differ primarily in their approach to study. Natural sciences are concerned with establishing general patterns. The humanities, on the other hand, individualize their subject matter. Simply put, a physicist or biologist is interested in laws that apply to any physical body or biological one. A historian or literary critic is interested in a specific historical period, a specific literary figure, or a work. At the same time, all these items are unique, unrepeatable. Naturally, they are partly similar – there are historical patterns and each tree or star is unique, but in general, the difference is in the approach.

Leave a Reply