The interactions between science and culture can be perceived from three vantage points: from the impact of a dominant culture on science, from developments in science which may create different science cultures that affects communicability between scientific traditions (for example between the humanities and the natural sciences, and between disciplines within the sciences), and at the level of application in problem solving. Nevertheless, although different science cultures evolved their own ways of looking at problems and doing research, all of them are today guided by the same universal principles of being objective, measured, creative in observation, rigorous in practice, rational in contemplation, honest in reporting, transparent in procedure and open to peer-evaluation. Specialisation was a powerful driver behind 300 years of scientific progress through a systematically narrower focus on an aspect of a phenomenon. This produced a depth of knowledge, but it is ill-suited to provide the breadth of understanding of the pervasive systemic consequences when such knowledge is applied. Unless scholars from the different disciplines are able (and willing) to contribute and listen attentively to conflicting ideas and theories they may experience “cognitive dissonance” when faced with ideas that differ strongly from their own. It is from time to time necessary to re-evaluate the culture that shapes the beliefs and behaviour of society, and especially to reflect on the reigning ideas of a specific culture, including on what it considers to be the nature of “progress”—especially regarding the benefits and costs to society over the longer term. A new consciousness and appreciation of the potentially useful complementarities in the contributions of different scholastic traditions are needed. To discover new knowledge about the constituent elements, or workings, of matter and the living environment is necessary, but it is not sufficient to use this new knowledge wisely: a new way of thinking about the workings of complex living systems are also needed. Therefore, the contributions of both divergent and analytical thinkers, of humanists and scientists, of West and East and of modern and traditional thinking should be considered—if only to break the mould of the culturally-shaped mind. To cross the cognitive divide between the humanities and the sciences, multidisciplinary problem-solving through dialogue, heuristic learning and soft systems thinking is proposed.

Science and Culture

章节
发表日期：

2026年

查看全文

Philip H. Spies

摘要

The interactions between science and culture can be perceived from three vantage points: from the impact of a dominant culture on science, from developments in science which may create different science cultures that affects communicability between scientific traditions (for example between the humanities and the natural sciences, and between disciplines within the sciences), and at the level of application in problem solving. Nevertheless, although different science cultures evolved their own ways of looking at problems and doing research, all of them are today guided by the same universal principles of being objective, measured, creative in observation, rigorous in practice, rational in contemplation, honest in reporting, transparent in procedure and open to peer-evaluation. Specialisation was a powerful driver behind 300 years of scientific progress through a systematically narrower focus on an aspect of a phenomenon. This produced a depth of knowledge, but it is ill-suited to provide the breadth of understanding of the pervasive systemic consequences when such knowledge is applied. Unless scholars from the different disciplines are able (and willing) to contribute and listen attentively to conflicting ideas and theories they may experience “cognitive dissonance” when faced with ideas that differ strongly from their own. It is from time to time necessary to re-evaluate the culture that shapes the beliefs and behaviour of society, and especially to reflect on the reigning ideas of a specific culture, including on what it considers to be the nature of “progress”—especially regarding the benefits and costs to society over the longer term. A new consciousness and appreciation of the potentially useful complementarities in the contributions of different scholastic traditions are needed. To discover new knowledge about the constituent elements, or workings, of matter and the living environment is necessary, but it is not sufficient to use this new knowledge wisely: a new way of thinking about the workings of complex living systems are also needed. Therefore, the contributions of both divergent and analytical thinkers, of humanists and scientists, of West and East and of modern and traditional thinking should be considered—if only to break the mould of the culturally-shaped mind. To cross the cognitive divide between the humanities and the sciences, multidisciplinary problem-solving through dialogue, heuristic learning and soft systems thinking is proposed.