As scientists, many in the world believe we are reductionist, breaking everything down into component parts. For some humanities\u2019 scholars this can be equated to the fact that we can\u2019t possibly be creative or, in Thomas Carlyle\u2019s words (in 1833), that<\/p>\n
\u2018The Progress of Science\u2026is to destroy wonder, and in its stead substitute Mensuration and Numeration\u2019.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
That attitude is, I fear, one part of why scientists are too often seen as \u2018other\u2019, not part of our nation\u2019s culture, despite the fact that it is a complete misunderstanding of how scientists typically operate. For further thoughts about this take a look at what I wrote about the philosopher Mary Midgley\u2019s take on science here<\/a> .<\/p>\n
The fact that, at least since around Carlyle\u2019s time, science and arts have been put in opposition by some otherwise wise people, formed part of my Presidential Address to the British Science Association<\/a> this week. I have posted the full (if not necessarily completely precisely followed) text of this address up as a page <\/a>on this blog, but let me tease out a minor theme that wasn\u2019t particularly developed there but which underpins it: compartmentalisation. (The text<\/a> is also up on the BSA’s website)<\/p>\n
This post is really prompted by a passing comment exchanged after I had recorded\u00a0Private Passions<\/a> with Michael Berkeley<\/a> for Radio 3 (to be broadcast at noon on October 4th<\/sup>). This is a programme about the influence of (usually classical) music on the interviewee\u2019s life, a classical Desert Island Discs if you like. Not everyone might want to participate, however passionately they might be able to talk about their day job. Since I spent a lot of my teens playing in orchestras and singing in choirs I was willing to attempt to sound intelligent about my choice of music and, more importantly, to sneak some science unexpectedly into the listener\u2019s sitting room. In fact, I enjoyed the experience: Michael was easy to talk to and only occasionally did I feel I was adrift with his professional musicological thoughts.<\/p>\n
However, the throwaway remark that has given me pause for thought was when the team asked me to let them know if I could think of other people who might be willing to record a programme. Now, I\u2019m sure I know many scientists who are deeply appreciative and knowledgeable of classical music but I don\u2019t think I know who they are. I don\u2019t go to concerts with them (or, indeed, go to concerts at all as life just seems too busy); I don\u2019t exchange ideas about the music of Schubert or Bach over a cup of tea, raise the subject of Hindemith in the bar at a conference or discuss Monteverdi as I pass the wine around at a formal College dinner. I could, there\u2019s no reason why not, but as it happens it rarely comes up. So, at that point in the conversation with the production team I could only think of one scientist I knew for sure was deeply into music (because I\u2019d seen him tweeting during the Proms this year). Since then I\u2019ve come up with a couple of other possible names.<\/p>\n
This is sad. For all I\u2019m proud that I\u2019m not a complete literary or musical dunce, I am much more likely to discuss a novel or non-fiction book that\u2019s taken my fancy with colleagues than to discuss music. I\u2019m not sure why. Why have I formed this compartment around music that doesn\u2019t apply to books? Do people think this a common experience and does such fragmentation apply more broadly or are some topics more likely to be hidden away than others?<\/p>\n
I will continue to think about possible names to suggest to Private Passions. I will go on pondering what this means for me about how I view the strands of my life. In my College, once home to CP Snow<\/a> who dreamt up the Two Cultures meme, I hope that we can continue to mix and match the (intellectual) passions of our students and fellowship to create a rich and thriving cultural environment. In the meantime, do read my full Presidential Address to see precisely why I think \u2018Education Matters more than Ever<\/em>\u2019 \u2013 and listen to my musical choice in a couple of weeks.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As scientists, many in the world believe we are reductionist, breaking everything down into component parts. For some humanities\u2019 scholars this can be equated to the fact that we can\u2019t possibly be creative or, in Thomas Carlyle\u2019s words (in 1833), … Continue reading