CC BY
47
ГУМАНИТАРНЫЕ НАУКИ: ТЕОРИЯ И МЕТОДОЛОГИЯ
Possibilities for a Union of Human and Natural Sciences in the 21st Century
W. KOFLER
(The International Academy of Science, Innsbruck, Austria)
This is a report presented at the 9th International Scientific Conference «Higher Education for the 21st Century» that took place at Moscow University for the Humanities on 15—17 November, 2012. The speaker substantiates the necessity of a union of human and natural sciences for a better understanding of the difficulties of contemporary social life, which is interconnected with the problems of ecology and people’s health. Keywords: human sciences, natural sciences, ecology, health, union, methodology, extended view.
Abstract and Level One
The need for a comprehensive understanding of topics, which are related to the fields of human and natural sciences is generally accepted fEas well by the scientific communities as by politicians. The increasing relevance is demonstrated on behalf of three examples. The first example is of social instability in consequence of the impact of the virtual market on daily life, ecosystems, and physical health. The second one deals with new results in the development of personality, a classic field of the humanities. New data demonstrates the relevance of ecosystems. The third example shows the increasing relevance of aspects related to the humanities for public health. All three examples show the urgent need not only to handle the so called «world knot» — the body-mind problem, but to bridge the gaps between the individual and society, as well as physical, mental and psychosocial reality with virtuality. The problem seems to be generally accepted as well in sciences as in politics. Nevertheless, only in politics related instruments are presented. The UN has elaborated its strategy to reach the adapted millennium goals within the 21st century development strategies of the
UNESCO, the UNEP and the WHO. However, the transfer into praxis is restricted. One reason is the lack of a joint scientific basis. The need for such a basis to link human and natural sciences has been, in principle, accepted in medicine at the latest since 1977 thanks to a publication in Science (Engel, 1977). Nevertheless, the technique for a transfer of this vision into a correct scientific model could not be realized up to now because of epistemological reasons. This demonstrates the key problem: the need for adequate epistemolog-ical and ontological tools to link up indispensible sectoral scientific disciplines, which cannot be connected on a causal level. Other relevant burdens result from the restrictions and misinterpretations of the traditionally accepted epistemolog-ical tool of empirical science: the splitting of complex problems into parts, the solution of the most simple and easiest ones and turn up to the point when the complex and difficult problem is worked out. This causes the differentiation into more and more specialized disciplines. This can be symbolized with a «microscope». We have learned that systems can only be understood as a whole. Therefore, splitting is an inadequate technique for the better understanding of systems. An
alternative technique to handle this can be compared with the use ofa macroscope to focus more on the general connections. A relevant restriction for the unification of human and natural sciences is to bridge different systems. Another restriction is based on incompatible ontology and the meaning of related terms, even if they have the same wording. However, this allows the use of an epis-temological technique, which A. Einstein used to link the formerly unlinked theories of Maxwell and Newton by the relativity theories. In this way, the linkage between human and natural sciences was possible, but just after an adjustment of this technique according to the needs of human and natural sciences.
LEVEL 2 Three Examples
There are examples of the need for additional legal activities to save the basic supply offood for the population from all over the world, as well as examples of public protest and social instability in consequence of hunger. This hunger is often not the consequence of climate disasters, but of the speculation with food within a virtual market. The virtual market dominates the real economy more and more, and the use of ecosystems for the production of food for gasoline, animals, etc. It is obvious that the virtual market, social and cultural stability, biological health and sustainability are closely linked.
Aggression, anxiety, drug consumption are obvious problems in nearly all societies and political systems. There is no discussion: these phenomena have to be seen from the position of socialization. Moreover, there are highly significant correlations between a deficit of contacts with nature among youngsters and the increase of these problems. We have to integrate the need for healthy nature into our figure of socialization and development of personality, as the book «The Last Child in the Woods» by R. Louv demonstrates (Louv, 2005).
The goal of health politics has not changed over the last 150 years. It offers options for a fulfilled life to as many persons in our communities as possible. However, a relevant change in the instruments, which are needed to reach this goal, and the measures to compare societies with respect to the effect of public health activities has
taken place within the last 100 years: everybody is wishing good health for the New Year. This very old tradition is to be understood with historic correlations: if a person was getting old 150 years ago, he or she was never really ill. Curative medicine was not powerful enough to fight, e.g., against tuberculosis. In addition, the person had usually enough food to eat fEotherwise he would have fallen ill and would have died earlier. He or she was respected within society because of his/ her relevant experiences. So, if I wish you health then I wish not only that you should not fall ill, but also that you should have a fulfilled life over many years and should be happy, powerful, accepted in the community, etc. As long as infectious diseases, the consequences of hunger, missing hygiene and workload had been dominating mortality distribution, it was enough to measure life expectancy and mortality distribution to compare the level of health between collectives. Nevertheless, after the Second World War this changed significantly. Coronary heart disease and stroke were increasing more and more — at first just in men, later on in women too. «Manager Disease» was the new key term! Psychosocial stress and behavior began to influence life expectancy, morbidity and mortality more and more. We had to extend our tools to fight for health for the people as well as the instruments to measure the output of public activities. Now — in the 21st century we have to integrate wellbeing and health promotion into our strategies and measures in order to be able to give the adequate answer to the same question 2as they gave 150 years ago on the basis of life expectancy. The data of the World Bank demonstrates that there is a close correlation between GNP per capita and life expectancy, but over about 5.000$ the direct correlation fades if you compare different countries. (However, it will be evident again if you compare subgroups within the same country). A nearly identical correlation shows the comparison of the index for successful life and GNP. R. Costanza has linked these facts and presented an explanation for this surprising result: the prerequisites, which can be paid, dominate if the GNP is (very) low (Costanza, 2007). Then immaterial aspects start to win more and more relevance up to the point where topics «highly related to the humanities» domi-
nate. This graph demonstrates the relevance of the interaction between processes, which can be handled with natural sciences and such that can be investigated within human sciences. However, the key area is the field, which is dominated by the interaction of all of them. Unfortunately, we do not have adequate scientific instruments to deal with them.
Problems based on similar interactions have been well known for the restrictions in the understanding of medicine at least since 1977, when G. Engel (as I have mentioned above) published in Science his remarkable paper about the need for a bio-psychosocial model for medicine (Engel, 1977). He proposed a technique how to realize this vision: we should use the General System Theory to handle the different hierarchical layers from cell to society, which are relevant for a human person. Nevertheless, this proposal could not be realized because of some epistemological reasons: the system theory is powerful to understand processes within a cell, within a body and within a society. However, it is impossible to link the different layers because of epistemological reasons. The way seems to be conclusive, but the epistemolog-ical — and therefore philosophical — tool is not adequate. What we need are adequate tools.
Politics Are More Progressive Than Human and Natural Sciences
The need for comprehensive answers to daily life problems is known not only for the daily need of medical doctors. It is generally accepted especially by political institutions, which focus on long term guidance: the UN has agreed in the so-called Millennium goals that should be realized with the sectoral strategies of the related keyinstitutions of the UN: by the UNESCO (Education 21), by the UNEP (Rio 21) and by the WHO (Health 21). Unfortunately, the strategies are not sufficiently enough coordinated. One of the reasons is the lack of a joint scientific basis.
There is hardly any speaker of a scientific community both of human and of natural sciences who have never lamented the lack of the unification of human and natural sciences and interconnection with the applied sciences like agriculture, architecture, law, etc. Almost everyone points out the relevance of a comprehensive understanding and the need to solve the problems ofthe
future not only with the tools of the past. However, a real change has not taken place. The key instruments for interdisciplinary research are restricted in teams consisting of experts in different disciplines. Nevertheless, in which way should each representative respect the position of the other without a scientific tool, which allows joining them? The situation seems similar to the challenge for a medical doctor who should serve an individual person on the basis of the state of the art: he/she has to deal with instruments, which are only valid for an average medical care for an individual. The evaluation of the given uncertainty has to be done by empathy. There is no scientific basis for empathy. Therefore, we call medicine an art. A member of an interdisciplinary team is in a much worse position. A MD can use his/her personal scientific education and his/her personal experiences. An expert in the team has just a general scientific education in his/her field and within his/her «microscope» but no education in all the different disciplines, which should be linked! In addition, very often he/she has to accept results, which are not based on causality but just on statistical correlations on the basis ofrisk. He/she must be more than an artist, mustn’t he/she?
Why Do We Have Just Experts for the «Microscope»?
a) The actual developments within the scientific communities are in opposition to the fundamentals of science. Aristotle introduced many scientific disciplines of natural and human sciences. He did this with good arguments, but with a nearly forgotten prerequisite: all scientists have accepted the same ontology, identical principles for correct thinking and ethical frames for application. We cannot accept the teleological aspects of Aristotle’s cosmology anymore. It was a cultural burden. However, his comprehensive understanding of various aspects of our world is helpful up to today. In the ancient times, science had a general basis. Without a joint principle, we should not expect compatibility.
b) The second noteworthy aspect deals with the restrictions and misinterpretations of the technique, which was introduced by Descartes and others. They proposed to split complex and difficult topics into parts and to start with the solution of the most simple and easiest ones, then
to solve them and go forward up to the point where all parts can be fitted together to answer a complex and difficult basic problem. We know the restrictions, which are given by splitting a system into parts, but we have to give respect to the restrictions of the human brain too. Therefore, we have to look for a technique to solve problems step-by-step. This is possible if we simplify complex aspects temporarily and make more and more dense models within the progress of science («macroscope»). For that process, the results of the «microscope» are often indispensible. Both techniques should work hand in hand. Consequently, adequate «splitting» would not be a real restriction: the fact that a scientific work is published without respecting of the whole seems to be more relevant. To be able to answer/publish the whole was the reason for Descartes, i.e. methodically not unproblematic splitting was acceptable for him! The consequence of this splitting into more and more small parts is — as it is often deplored — a new Tower of Babel: a process, which is supported, e.g., by the impact factor system, the criteria for grants, etc. This causes a very stringent process of specialization without any time to look upon something beside one’s interest focus. We should not expect that such extremely specialized experts would be able to «generalize» and to link their results with the neighbor fields.
The conclusion. We need experts for the «microscopes» in addition to experts for the «macroscope» We need joint fundamentals for the disciplines that should be unified. The restrictions are caused by the lack of epistemological and ontological tools. Therefore, we need such adequate tools of philosophy.
Tools and the Extended View
It was common for human and natural scientists to be well-trained in the application of philosophical tools up to the beginning ofthe 20th century. One hero is of special relevance for our problem: A. Einstein. He had a problem akin to the unification of human and natural sciences: to unify the mechanics of Newton and the electromagnetism of Maxwell. Both seemed to exclude each other according to the Aristotelian logics. If one sentence excludes the other one totally, then one must be wrong, the other must be correct and there is no third solution. This can be demon-
strated as follows: one sentence is «My father is catholic» the other sentence is «My father is not catholic» One must be wrong, the other must be correct and there cannot be a third solution, because of the fact that I must have a father.
The prerequisites of Newton’s and Maxwell’s correct statements about movement seemed to exclude each other. A statement about movement (e.g., of a star) can be correct only if you integrate the position and the movement of the observer. Therefore, the statement of an observer about the speed and the direction of a train between Moscow and Paris will be in principle different if one observation is reported by a cosmonaut in a satellite, and the other one is stated by a person standing close to the railway station. Maxwell postulated: this may be true, but a statement about the speed of the movement of the light (e.g., of this star) is only correct if you DO NOT integrate the position of the observer. Now you must decide whose viewpoint to «junk» Newton’s or Maxwell’s. A. Einstein solved this problem: only the statements seem to be in contradiction, but not the nature behind. Any (even scientific) term is just a free invention of the human mind to deal (as simple as possible) with our world. Terms are of a different nature than that for what they denote. For instance, the map is ofanother nature than the landscape. Therefore, we can and we have to invent additional terms if such incompatibilities between indispensible theories occur. Moreover, if different terms/formulations cover identical principles/effects then there must be a theory that allows understanding ofthem as identical. A. Einstein created a new definition of «movement» which covered all aspects of the theories proposed both by Newton and Maxwell, and unifled the assumptions of inertial and heavy mass: the Relativity Theories and the principle of Real Theories were born.
My conclusion is the following: human and natural sciences are indispensible. They use — with good reason — not only different worldviews, but also terms with identical wording, e.g., the term «evolution» There must be a more fundamental understanding of the process, which covers all the different contents of «evolution» including the term «history». If it would be possible to create such a more basic assumption so
that the new characterization could cover (like a new ground set) all former definitions of the sectoral disciplines then all could be seen as subsets within the new ground set.
I have created such a model. I call it the «Extended View»
Some aspects are accepted both in human and in natural sciences. I will focus just on two of them. The first one consists in that every scientific discipline accepts that the situation of today is depending on the situation of yesterday, the situation of yesterday — on the day before yesterday, etc. Natural sciences call this «evolution» and so do different disciplines of human sciences. Others speak of «history» However, the basic assumptions are very similar. In addition, all agree in just one evolutionary process with many «branches» The other agreement is that all that exists consists just in quanta and nothing else. Nevertheless, the term «quanta» is a term created by physicists. They restrict their definition just to aspects, which can be handled with physical methods. We may remember a marble statue, e.g., of the Artemis of Kos and compare it with Brigitte Bardot. We assume that both of them weigh 63 kg. Therefore, they have the same number of quanta. Are they really the same? With respect to physical research they may be. However, they are not the same for a medical doctor or for a humanities researcher. Consequently, we have to adjust our assumptions about quanta in such a way that they will cover the prerequisites for physical, biological, psychic and social effects, but in agreement with the sectoral disciplines. This I have done and used for a model of the Extended View. The basic assumption behind is that if we are able to create a model, which allows to deduce an autopoietic process (e.g., from «Big Bang» to «Big Mac» from heuristic based assumptions about the autopoiesis of quanta, then we have the hope that the incompatibilities between human and natural sciences, between body and mind and also between physical, psychic, mental reality and virtuality can be handled much more appropriately than today.
Therefore, it is allowed to create assumptions for the autopoiesis of quanta with respect to heu-
ristic and «as simple as possible, but not easier» data. It is not allowed to invent anything within this model from Big Bang to Big Mac after their creation any more. All must be deduced just from the actors and their surroundings, which have been given in different actual settings within the assumed evolutionary process.
With respect to the arguments above, we have created four levels with the increasing density of the statements. The General Extended View implies a draft of a blueprint of the process from Big Bang to Big Mac, the Special Extended View for the evolutionary process ofa human person as a social being, the Applied Extended View for general health-related and sustainability aspects, the Complex Extended Social Medicine and the Extended View on Public Health.
REFERENCE LIST Costanza, R. (2007) Toward an Ecological Economy // The Encyclopedia of Earth / ed. by C. J. Cleveland. Washington, D.C. : Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment. URL: http://www.eoearth. org/article/Toward_an_ecological_economy?topic =49721 [First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth May 10, 2007; last revised May 13, 2007; retrieved October 9, 2008].
Engel, G. L. (1977) The Need for a New Medical Model: A Challenge for Biomedicine // Science. Vol. 196. №4286. P. 129—136.
Louv, R. (2005) Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. P. 1-36.
Дата поступления: 12.12.2012 г.
ВОЗМОЖНОСТИ СОЮЗА ГУМАНИТАРНЫХ И ЕСТЕСТВЕННЫХ НАУК В XXI ВЕКЕ В. Кофлер
(Международная академия наук, г. Инсбрук, Австрия) Полный текст доклада на IX Международной научной конференции «Высшее образование для XXI века», которая состоялась в МосГУ 15-17 ноября 2012 г. Докладчик обосновывает необходимость союза гуманитарных и естественных наук для лучшего понимания сложностей современной социальной жизни, которая взаимосвязана с проблемами экологии, здоровья людей. Ключевые слова: гуманитарные науки, естественные науки, экология, здоровье, союз, методология, расширенный взгляд.
