Divided on divide 1

November 18, 2005

Brian Morton is incorrect to conclude that C. P. Snow's two-cultures divide still exists in both directions (Opinion, November 11).

Most scientists "do" the arts for fun, everything from reading texts to textual analysis, including via the weekend supplements (compare the supplement with the "I'll talk slowly so that you can understand" science in most print media).

With a few honourable exceptions (Melvyn Bragg for one) most "literary types" simply can't hack it in science for one simple reason - the level of the bar for scientific reasoning has become higher over time, while postmodernist relativism has denuded the arts of their rigour. This is most evident in the visual arts, where no one appears able to inform the emperor of his nudity.

You simply can't get away with relativism in science; some things are just plain wrong. That understanding in the sciences, rather than simple arrogance, is why scientists are generally confident enough to engage with the arts, whereas many literary intellectuals would be hard-pressed to multiply one three-digit number by another three-digit number.

David McAlpine

Professor of auditory neuroscience

University College London

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments


Featured jobs