IAt a 1959 conference, British physicist and novelist CP Snow warned his Cambridge colleagues that “the intellectual life of the whole of Western society is increasingly divided into two polar groups.” Snow was referring to the divide between researchers in the sciences and the humanities, complaining that “literary intellectuals” and “physicists” did not understand or respect each other. Fast forward 62 years and the situation has only worsened, made worse by further entrenchment, a decrease in the number of students majoring in the humanities and a series of global challenges that require a creative confluence of different types of knowledge. .

In my new book, Great minds don’t Think Look alike, I document the conversations I have had with leading thinkers who bridge the gap between the sciences and the humanities.

The meteoric growth of many fields of scientific knowledge over the past three centuries has led to a niche knowledge model. In science, we are trained to be technically competent in a specific sub-field; those who dare to cross the fields before tenure are generally punished (read: tenure refused). The same model of hyper-specialization has spread in the humanities. Just as typical laser physicists don’t understand astrophysicists, classical scientists don’t research Edmund Husserl or Jorge Luis Borges. There are of course exceptions, but in both areas they are rare. While this concentration is necessary for success in academia, it comes up against the intellectual openness needed to learn other areas of research.

This rootedness of knowledge influences our vision of the world and our way of teaching. Snow’s lament was intended as an alarm signal, an invitation, as yet ignored, to promote intellectual openness and curiosity. Wanting to learn from another person, even with interests far removed from your field of research or with different political or cultural viewpoints, is essential if we are to face the formidable challenges that threaten civilization. And for that, the sciences and the humanities must be open to each other.

Fortunately, the barriers between science and the humanities are collapsing. Critical questions, once primarily within the purview of the human sciences, are now part of scientific research. Conversely, science and its uses are inseparable from moral choices. There is light and shade in every new technology. The nature of free will, the nature of reality, the nature of consciousness, the future of humanity in an increasingly technological world, our future in space, our cosmic loneliness, the limits of knowledge scientific, these questions and many others cross disciplinary boundaries. Looking at any of them from a one-sided scientific or humanist point of view is like looking through a window with the blinds down. With such questions at the forefront, we have the unprecedented opportunity to engage the sciences and humanities in constructive engagement and to reposition them as complementary and interdependent facets of human knowledge.

Read an excerpt from Great minds don’t think the same

For example, with CRISPR and other genetic engineering technologies, we are now on the verge of being able to modify the human genome in ways that benefit or upset future generations. Jennifer Doudna, who shared the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Emmanuelle Charpentier for the discovery of CRISPR, said she was increasingly uncomfortable with the potential ethical repercussions of genome editing, citing issues of access, eugenics, privilege and the difficulty of global regulation. . Add to that the rapidly growing capabilities of machine learning and other technologies, and we see how advancing a science agenda based primarily on commercial interests and in the absence of any humanistic consideration can turn promising technologies into risks. existential. The utopian scenarios not advised by science as a cure for all ills can quickly turn into dystopia.

But this is the world we live in, the world that future generations will inherit. Great minds don’t think the same is a collection of conversations in which I have had the privilege of unboxing some of these thorny, modern issues with leading scientists and humanists from various fields. They were part of a larger experiment, the Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Engagement at Dartmouth, created to break down interdisciplinary barriers between practitioners of the sciences and the humanities, through conversations, scholarships and workshops. . To my surprise, we saw great support from our guests and various audiences for this recalibration. Let us express the need for new lines of communication and break down the walls that prevent us from openly learning from each other.