- #1
Hak
- 709
- 56
I have long been gripped by an argument that I believe is profound, rooted in the science-literature dichotomy. It tends to favor one particular branch of knowledge, advocating an aut-aut (either pure science, or applied science) that devalues and demonizes the other. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this is not the case. Although distant, humanae litterae and the theoretical-experimental sciences possess many points of contact. To cite the most striking example, Dante's Divine Comedy (Commedia) is a condensation of scientific knowledge of the highest order, ennobled by some of the greatest verses ever transposed onto the page. I have had the pleasure, prompted by heated curiosity, of reading all the hundred Cantos comprising this sum work, analyzing them in minute detail. Within it, one can detect an innumerable amount of references to all scientific disciplines: 1) LOGIC; 2) ARITHMETICS and THEORY OF NUMBERS; 3) ALGEBRA and CALCULATION OF PROBABILITIES; 4) GEOMETRY; 5) GEOLOGY; 6) MECHANICS; 7) RELATIVITY; 8) PHYSICS OF CAOS; 9) OPTICS and ACUSTICS; 10) THERMODYNAMICS; 11) ELECTROMAGNETISM; 12) PLANETOLOGY; 13) ASTRONAUTICS; 14) ASTRONOMY (in the sense of stargazing); 15) ASTRONOMIC GEOGRAPHY; 16) ASTROPHYSICS and large-scale study of the universe; 17) GENERAL RELATIVITY; 18) QUANTUM MECHANICS; 19) THEORY OF SUPERSTRINGS and BRANES. Crazy.
I don't know if you are familiar with the article written by Rovelli (an Italian physicist) some time ago, in which he argues that Dante uses a hypersphere as a model for Paradiso, to make it clear how impossible it is for us mere mortals to visualize something so divine.
In classroom reading, of necessity, many scientific aspects are lost, sometimes also due to the poor ability of professors to connect different subjects (a problem that grips both humanities and science professors, with a few rare exceptions. I would not want you to think that I think the problem is unidirectional: many physics and science professors also have serious gaps in philosophy, history, literature et cetera). I find the physics-literature relationship extremely exciting.
In this regard, I cite another great example of a literary-scientist, namely Galileo. Reading Galileo's Italian gives one chills. The clarity with which he shows us (it really seems we can see them!) the mental experiments is disarming, so much so that even Calvin praises Galilei's language.
Another aspect easily connected with science is metaphysics, although, all too often, physicists consider the latter branch of knowledge "fluff." A (very good) physics professor I know persists in demonizing this branch, unconditionally offending any kind of religious-metaphysical attitude because it is contrary to science. Having passed the positivist parenthesis, there have been many who have then tried to unite these two branches of knowledge: Einstein is perhaps one of the first, and his greatness is also to be found in that aspect (you will all have read the article he wrote for the "Scientific American" around the 1950s, in which he calls himself a "domesticated metaphysician"... magnificent!), then Popper, Kuhn, and especially Feyerabend in "Against Method," to date my favorite book on epistemology. More generally, I believe the connections between the humanistic and scientific fields are fundamental. A proposal that I am trying (in my small way, for now) to carry forward and which could favor this meeting would be to change the wording "Physics" in school curricula (at least Italian, I don't know if also English or American) with that of "History of Physics". In this way, professors would be more inclined to dedicate a part of the program to the history of the birth of the theory of interest (even an hour would be enough). This would encourage contact between physics and history and, in general, between science and humanism. Furthermore, it would remove from the minds of students the idea that physics is something immutable, a monument built in a distant past and which can no longer be touched. The wording "History of Physics" would instead make it clear that science is an ocean of ideas, theories and interpretations in continuous movement. What do you think? Let me know. Thanks.
I don't know if you are familiar with the article written by Rovelli (an Italian physicist) some time ago, in which he argues that Dante uses a hypersphere as a model for Paradiso, to make it clear how impossible it is for us mere mortals to visualize something so divine.
In classroom reading, of necessity, many scientific aspects are lost, sometimes also due to the poor ability of professors to connect different subjects (a problem that grips both humanities and science professors, with a few rare exceptions. I would not want you to think that I think the problem is unidirectional: many physics and science professors also have serious gaps in philosophy, history, literature et cetera). I find the physics-literature relationship extremely exciting.
In this regard, I cite another great example of a literary-scientist, namely Galileo. Reading Galileo's Italian gives one chills. The clarity with which he shows us (it really seems we can see them!) the mental experiments is disarming, so much so that even Calvin praises Galilei's language.
Another aspect easily connected with science is metaphysics, although, all too often, physicists consider the latter branch of knowledge "fluff." A (very good) physics professor I know persists in demonizing this branch, unconditionally offending any kind of religious-metaphysical attitude because it is contrary to science. Having passed the positivist parenthesis, there have been many who have then tried to unite these two branches of knowledge: Einstein is perhaps one of the first, and his greatness is also to be found in that aspect (you will all have read the article he wrote for the "Scientific American" around the 1950s, in which he calls himself a "domesticated metaphysician"... magnificent!), then Popper, Kuhn, and especially Feyerabend in "Against Method," to date my favorite book on epistemology. More generally, I believe the connections between the humanistic and scientific fields are fundamental. A proposal that I am trying (in my small way, for now) to carry forward and which could favor this meeting would be to change the wording "Physics" in school curricula (at least Italian, I don't know if also English or American) with that of "History of Physics". In this way, professors would be more inclined to dedicate a part of the program to the history of the birth of the theory of interest (even an hour would be enough). This would encourage contact between physics and history and, in general, between science and humanism. Furthermore, it would remove from the minds of students the idea that physics is something immutable, a monument built in a distant past and which can no longer be touched. The wording "History of Physics" would instead make it clear that science is an ocean of ideas, theories and interpretations in continuous movement. What do you think? Let me know. Thanks.
).