E-Mail/Letters

Border skirmishes

As a member of "the other culture," I find the special section entitled "The Sciences and the Humanities" (Spring 1997) informative yet intriguing. Informative because all five writers have presented interesting and scholarly perspectives on the relationship between two scientific cultures (a physical one and a social one). Intriguing because all five authors could be largely classified as members of one culture. So it begs for questions: Did I miss an issue, or did someone rip a few pages out of this one? Will there be a sequel in the next issue presenting views from members of "the other culture"? Maybe there isn't enough space for everyone to write, or maybe members from "the other culture" simply aren't interested in such a subject. Or maybe there aren't any prominent members from "the other culture" on campus, but that can't be true since Columbia is one of the leading research institutions in physical science. So what happened?

It is rather interesting that for a significant issue such as this one, the journal did not present views from both sides, whether they are in agreement or disagreement. But then again, maybe implicitly the question regarding "Friends, foes, or foils?" or "Allies or enemies?" was already answered by your journal.

Richard P. Hsung, Ph.D.
Department of Chemistry

The Editors reply:

The "two cultures" metaphor was adopted from C.P. Snow's characterization of the perceived dichotomy between science and the humanities as a device to focus the discussion on how these cultures relate in academia. Dr. Hsung reminds us that we should never oversimplify the relationships among disciplines, which collectively define a single academic culture, even for the sake of provoking discussion. We will continue to explore this.

You say you want a revolution...

I found "Does philosophy drive science?" (Conversations, Spring 1997) very thought-provoking. The topic of objectivity launched an interesting conversation among four interesting minds, and the photos gave a feeling of what it'd be like to be a fly on the wall during that dialogue.

I wondered about John Horgan's statement, "Science addresses questions that can be answered eventually. Somehow, you get consensus. Philosophy addresses all the other questions that can't be answered." This seemed true enough, but couldn't we transcend both disciplines, and use real methods of arriving at consensus (such as conflict resolution techniques) precisely to address philosophical, psychological, or other implications -- ultimately to integrate them?

Robert Park pointed out the dangers of claiming one way of knowing is superior to others. My question is what are ways of increasing the awareness of ways of knowing in the first place? As David Albert indicated indirectly, a change of mind can cause a revolution.

Roben Torosyan
Ph.D. candidate, Philosophy & Education, Teachers College

Chowtime for the mind

Serendipitously, I became aware of 21stC. Every issue has been superb. I do not see how anyone who has been exposed to Columbia's educational process could not be favorably affected by this manifestation of continued intellectual feeding, both in their own lives and in their feelings about Columbia.

James J. Lennon, Columbia College '43
Lennon & Willett, Haddonfield, N.J.

Talk back to us! We invite your letters on the articles in this issue of 21stC. Postal address: 21stC Box 1369, Central Mail Room, Mail Code 4725 Columbia University New York, NY 10027 E-mail address: 21stC@columbia.edu 21stC reserves the right to print all or part of any letter received.