The sciences are part of the humanities? 

A studied phenomenon (e.g. a star, a living being, a rock) and their definition(s) are scientifically based on the perception of reflectance patterns bouncing back aspects of light from that phenomenon and their environments towards the eyes of the observers (e.g. scientists, citizens). Why should these phenomena perceived as images in Dreams differ from phenomena perceived as images via the eyes given that the brain will always manipulate the visual aspects consciously perceived, and therefore the definition of what a phenomenon should be?

Dear Thomas:

I would really like to contribute to your question, but I've already analyzed extensively the topic in a very similar thread. 

I hope you and other colleagues can continue to deepen this issue. 

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_still_a_gulf_between_scientists_and_intellectuals_Which_of_them_have_more_influence_on_peoples_worldviews

I make students drowing the algorithms. I'm not joking. They hate me.

What gap?

By drawing this canvas

1. Science - focused on external 5 senses

2. Mind - the driver of these senses 

3. intellect / wisdom - controller of the mind 

4. self - the master 

5. Supreme power (God) - of which self is a part.  

I do not think that such gap exist any more. Integration of science and humanities happened already through many disciplines that we do know as multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary. The question of two cultures is not so topical as before. 

Humans are the key tools of science practice. Human characteristics therefore influence science practice and science outcomes, thus science and humanities will always fully be integrated in each step of the science process. Do you see science without humans, even conducted by computers?

It is hardly possible on a lecture of electronics recite poetry or analyzing contemporary painting. But there are many technical experts who love poetry, music, history, etc. Sometimes, however, I observe that the artists do not consider science as "intellectual enough to matter." Mathematics I have never been able to (let alone physics, chemistry, etc.). Such talk is never good. On humanities schools should be emphasized that contemporary science give their holders the same pleasure (intellectual) as in art - if not even more.

I've almost never heard of a technical expert to say: I will not teach languages; not read the book, who is a Picasso, etc.

I am amazed many say there is no a gap.

There shouldn't be a gap perhaps, but there is one.

It should be an educated one, an induced one, but sometimes I think it is not a gap, but a precipice. Ha...  the efforts necessary to make students writing what they think in a structured way, in natural language, before trying to transform its logical constructs into a programming language, or the efforts to make them first imagining the issue by too simply drawing it.  Efforts to bridge the gap that somone has introduced step by step.

Writing a scientific article must be like poetry because you will never be allowed to write the same sentence/paragraph in two different articles twice? 

Dear Thomas and all,

This issue, as multidisciplinarity or interdisciplinarity, is very dear to me, and I consider it of utmost importance.

Thank you for the lovely question, and the way you bring it up !

As Medical practitioner, and as an Anatomist with total devotion to the beautiful perfection of the Human Body, I must agree with David Charles Wright-Carr, to consider that there should be NO gap between science and Arts and Humanities, when you consider, for example,  the field of Artistic Anatomy.

You can learn Anatomy and the basics of Medicine from the Works of Vesalius, and his Treaty was used for several centuries in most European Schools of Arts.

Also, many of the best literary works and even Poetry were written by medical practitioners.

In our modern Universities, there is much to profit from the introduction of disciplines from the Humanities to the more scientific pragmatic Courses.

Modern education should be multidisciplinar to be more global , more appealing and more updated.

This is my belief.

Dear all, thanks a lot for your vivid voices.

Dear David, Ljubomir and Marcel: I would love it to be like you think or say. But according to my experience it is still too often a precipice, making the sciences and even a lot of medical doctors Standing high and looking down on the humanities including psychiatry and psychotherapy.

And this even when there are proves, that psychotherapy is making changes in your brain and its function which you can see in the fMRT.

How do you convince People that there in reality is no gap, but only has been created one artificially?

They say "Scences hunaines" and "Sciences inhumaines" in french.

There is a shift in the purpuse of the secondary school education. Normally it should be to create a harmonic general knowledge about the "humaine" and the "inhumaine" with the corresponding skills behind.

According to my personal experience, the secondary education in countries like France or Russia (where, we all agree, there are strong academic schools and traditions in maths) gives a less tragic result in terms of gap. My possible explanation in terms of cognitive development is related to the aquisition of critical thinking skills and the development of imagination via this field.

Thomas: I was hoping I could get away with just writing a two-word answer to your interesting question, but since you insist, I will dedicate a little more time to this discussion. I admit that there are such gaps in the minds of individuals, but there is so much multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary work being done that the bridges are in place and carry a lot of traffic. The way to convince others is to carry out transdisciplinary research that is interesting and useful to others, contributing to the solution of various classes of problems.

Nearly two years ago, in a class on research methodology for master's students in the arts, I was showing my students some recent advances in visual perception and neuroscientifically based consciousness theory. A student who had completed a bachellor's program in visual arts blurted out: "But art has nothing to do with science!" I had a hard time finding an adequate answer that could be expressed in a few minutes. I continued to think about how to answer his statement, and as a result I developed a graduate seminar for my university's doctoral and master's in arts programs, called "Art in the Embodied Mind", where research from various disciplines are brought together and applied to the study and production of art.

While researching this transdisciplinary area of biological, social, phenomenological, and aesthetic inquiry, I met like-minded colleagues (here at ResearchGate) and we have formed a group that is organizing an international congress along these lines. This is just a beginning, but I think it partially answers your question, "How do you convince people that there in reality is no gap, but only has been created one artificially?".

Oops I am sorry, perhaps I created  kind of two different interpretations - this of the education of minds feeling a less big gap was added to this of the collaboration of the already educated minds. Obviously some are opened for collaboration outside of their domain and some are not opened. Minds refuse to go beyond their domains becouse they feel afraid (of not understanding for example) or because they are not motivated.  In some extend this depends on the minds education.

I thought that in the Academy of Art students learn first to copy what they see/perceive, e.g. a stature, a naked body, a flower, a landscape, etc.... Excellent artists and excellent scientists start first to be excellent observers/perceivers? And then there is Something added that might make them outstanding, e.g. an unexpected interpretation of what is perceived?  

Marcel: What we call "art" is a very wide, transdisciplinary category, including visual arts, music, performing arts, architecture, and design of all sorts. In the visual arts, the observation and representation of phenomenal experience is certainly part of the training (we should realize that we are not directly conscious of external "reality," rather we observe the reflections of the world --and internally generated images and ideas-- in our minds, which are generated by our bodies as they interact with their environments). Other parts involve exploring the experience of vision itself, symbolic content, interaction with others in a social context, technical and material aspects, historical antecedents, and aesthetic considerations. The "unexpected" may contribute to the interest generated by artistic objects and acts, as people tend to enjoy being led to have experiences that take them beyond where they usually go.

Role of social sciences is very close to the principles  of science, hence we can'it ignore social sciences including behavioral sciences especially in Health sciences, may be economics, political science, anthropology,  psychology etc. So there is no war , but these two domains are complimentary to each other. we can't ignore this concept. Most of researches  carried out  in public health are related to the social sciences which are the part of humanities. 

Dear sirs,

You may find interesting answers to this particular issue, on the interesting comments I read on a similar question, that I posted a few months ago...

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Would_you_consider_the_interest_of_adding_disciplines_from_the_Humanities_to_the_more_technical_Courses_such_as_Medicine_or_Engineering

I do hope that, as I posted this link to a similar question, taken from different angle, that I did not «hush» other comments to this question... As I told Thomas, both views of the issue complement and can be mutually nourishing, as taken from different points of view.

Thank you, Thomas, for understanding.

 I just discovered another complementing question  by

Marvin Kirsh 19.47

California State University, Los Angeles

What is the cogent purpose in seeking to bridge the natural and social sciences?

David Glyn Roberts then put the interesting answer, that it is a question of the definition of science.

This adds to some of my ideas, that the recent concept of sciences is so incomplete, that it does not fit nowadays and future needs anymore and even prevents the progress into really new dimensions.

Dear @Thomas, my sincere friend @Maria has fine thread that is related to this one! Almost 200 answers there.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_your_opinion_on_MULTIDISCIPLINARITY_in_Education

Thanks a lot Lijubomir for the hint to the wonderfull question of Maria with so many interesting Informations

Thanks a lot Lijubomir for the hint to the wonderfull question of Maria with so many interesting Informations

You are very welcome dear @Thomas.

thank you sirs, you are great people to converse with. 

This beneficial exchange of views will certainly lead us somewhere. In result to our common quest for interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary in education, we are here also starting to establish the valuable philosophical link of interdisciplinary between Q&A in RG. As we join hands, we can easily perceive mutually enriching contents of the several outstanding answers we can get through different angles and perceptions of several similar questions.

There are hundreds of different ways to post the same question. The important thing to center upon, is the end result of so many important contributes that any question can give rise to. 

Dear Maria, Ljubomir and all,

thanks a lot. My dream is to create a new and better form of Science, which is no longer dominated by hunting for the quicker (than others) result and high impact points, but for  looking beyond your own border of the plate and to share and find together the most suitable solution.

A lot of domains are excluded in the research today and the attitude of many scientist is not scientifical, when it comes to discuss phenomena like e.g. ESP, the energetical bodies and chakras of men etc.. They insist of only using newtonian physics instead of looking for ways how to explain something which is not obeying these laws, but other laws, we still have to find.

Solution-oriented research instead of the concrete of past decades is what we need. Flexibility and Tolerance to dare to think in new ways. Somebody who tries the first steps will fall down sometimes, which is his/her right, but must be encouraged to try again and may be in a slightly changed way.

So new ways for new solutions. Only this can give ground breaking results we need for a better future!

This question scientists are engaged in now. At the moment, the only area of scientific activities from humannity who recognized the natural sciences - a story in the United States in 1986, but in order to overcome this difference - it is necessary to introduce in humannity science the interdisciplinary approach.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Bridging the Gap between Science and the Humanities through Moral Education

Authors: 

Changwoo Jeong and Hyemin Han

Publication date: 

October/2011

There has been a deep chasm between the natural and physical sciences, social sciences, and the humanities, since the beginning of specialization among various fields. C. P. Snow, the eminent British scientist and author, spoke of how the breakdown of communication between the “two cultures” of modern society –- the culture of science and that of the humanities -– was becoming a hindrance to understanding and addressing pressing public issues. In working to integrate science and the humanities (especially ethics), we suggest that moral education needs to teach not only an understanding of the moral dimensions of science and technology, but also the fundamentals of ethics and values as they relate to current socioscientific issues and decision making in the realm of science and technology. In addition, special attention is given to developmental work regarding types of activity that form a bridge between scientific and humanities disciplines."

https://coa.stanford.edu/publications/bridging-gap-between-science-and-humanities-through-moral-education

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

Please, watch this youtube which is related to the subject. Where Professor Gunnar Öquist believes that the future of society depends on today's research. (Video: Kristian Secher, Videnskab.dk), it is entitled "Gunnar Öquist the benefits to society"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOggvmrwztI

One book that hit the Times best-seller list last year attracted me this year: Edward O. Wilson’s The Meaning of Human Existence. With a title like that, how could one not want to read further? In this book, Wilson takes up an ancient quest, largely abandoned in modern times, to explore the possibility of unifying the sciences and the humanities in order to grasp the meaning of life.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christophernelson/2015/12/20/five-books-seriously-worth-putting-down-your-iphone-for-this-holiday-season/

Dear Thomas and all,

Our challenge is to see and talk about the humanities and sciences as one thing; to capture the eidos of a humanistic science.  But what is it and what good is it? (c.f., Republic, 523c-527c)

This is a 2400 year-old problem.  How do we come to agreement about a comprehensive, precise and most economical account of humanities/science/philosophy, when this educational issue has endured this long?  

________

Michael: " The problem inherent in the surface of things, and only in the surface of things, is the heart of things...The heart of things being the precise and the surface being the comprehensive”...

Seth: “…the eidos has a structure to it.  There is an internal tension within an eidos, which I called the “indeterminate dyad”…

Ronna: “Would you call it an indeterminate dyad, then, when you have this kind of tripartite structure?  There’s a middle part that gets connected in some sense with one extreme, so that together they make up one over against the other extreme, but then it gets linked with that opposite and forms one with it over against the other…So the question is how these various structures are related”…

Seth: “Yes, I’ve understood it that way.”

~ Encounters and Reflections: Conversations with Seth Benardete 

(conversation arranged out of order, JR)

___________

“Virtually the first thing everyone has to learn.  It is common to all arts, science, and forms of thought.” “What?”

“Oh, that trivial business of being able to identify one, two, and three.” (Republic, 522c)

“One, Two, Three.  Already written.” ~Peirce, A Guess at the Riddle

___________

one, two, three...C, A, B (CP 5.189)...esthetics, ethics, logic...                          icon, index, symbol...comprehensive, precise, economical... Chapter 42

___________

If not phi spiral abduction, which? 

This determination must be cast if we are to expose our limits in defining a humanistic science education; if we are to avoid the strangeness induced through abstraction by an essence so removed from material manifestation.

Just saw again my old question and the answers: looks to me as if this as well has to do with my thread on logic versus non-logic thinking....

Hello Colleague Heise,

I tried to answer but it disappeared. Oh well. Es ist ganz mir egal. Check out my latest RG questions if interested in associative thinking about pollution, STEM, and literary/rhetorical analysis.

Sent out to anthropological colleagues at RG, for example:

"Is a key to culture found in distance from dirt"? Gruessen aus Tucson!