Consilience
As I write about brain architecture, new physics,
psychology and history, I hear a nagging critic that tries to convince me I’m
unworthy saying: “These are realms for scientists and people with PhDs.” There seems to be a warning that goes “Leave
it to the Professionals!” and “Don’t try this at Home!”
Our Modern World respects the separation and
division between fields of study. With the rise of the left brain came
categorization and compartmentalization. Disciplines have been divided into
micro-specializations. (It’s a good rule of thumb in the English language is if
a word is long it derives from a Latin and is more cerebral than
visceral.) When the two sides of the
brain were more balanced there was a greater emphasis in having a wide range of
knowledge and experience. The generalist
ruled rather than the specialist.
Iain McGilchrist, who wrote the brilliant THE MASTER
AND HIS EMISSARY: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World,
commented in an interview that the research into left-right brain architecture
was set back in the 1980s by the popularization of the topic. After the major research by Gazzaniga and
Sperry in the 1960s, the social sciences, humanities and arts adopted the
research and applied it to their areas. (It made sense with what they already
knew.) It did not matter that books like
DRAWING ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF YOUR BRAIN made the new brain research accessible
or that it provided an entrance to an idea that allowed and encouraged so many
to express themselves artistically through drawing. Real scientists did not want to be perceived
as delving into pop science. Serious
science can only be understood by scientist.
The same thing happened with research into the
emotions.
Even Mr. McGilchrist, who balances the training of a
Psychiatrist/Neuroscience researcher with having been an English Don who taught
at Oxford, was unable to avoid the criticism on his research and his
conclusions in his erudite and meticulously written book. The biggest criticisms seemed to state that what
we currently know about the brain can’t possibly be translated into a view of
our how we humans have lived or can live.
I thought the purpose of all human endeavors was to express how we can
live in our time.
E. O. Wilson wrote a book in 1998 that he called
CONSILIENCE. He chose this word and
title to describe “a literal ‘jumping together’ of knowledge by the linking of
facts and fact-based theory across disciplines to create a common groundwork of
explanation.” He chose this word over
coherence due to the rarity of usage had preserved its original meaning.[i]
He theorized that to solve the really big problems
that face us in the new millennium the combine the natural sciences will need
to collaborate with the social sciences, humanities and arts (gods
forbid). This was a bold move for a man
of science, though not a new thought. It
was an idea that he shared with the thinkers from all time periods where there
was a balance between the left and right brains, such as the Golden Age of
Greece, the Renaissance or the Enlightenment.
We must also accept that it is not only the
scientists that shun the non-scientists.
Most intellectual people are completely oblivious to basic scientific
knowledge. We are doing much better than
when C. P. Snow delivered is influential lecture, The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, that brought
attention to the divide between the Sciences and the Humanities. He criticized the so-called “intellectuals”
of being ignorant the most basic scientific principles.[ii]
I appreciate Snow’s argument. About twenty years ago, I realized that I had
absolutely no understanding of the theory of relativity or even the beginnings
of quantum mechanics. I knew they were
important discoveries and theories of our time.
As a purported intellectual person, I felt I should have a working
knowledge of these huge advancements in our description of how our world
works.
For a while, Adele and I ran a group we called the
Whole Actor Research Project (WARP). We
met regularly with a group of actors to explore and research alternative
rehearsal and performance techniques.
Our research pulled inspiration from the current advancements in the
physical and social sciences. Our actors
had advance training in their field (most had terminal degrees - Master of Fine
Arts in Acting) and extensive professional experience. In our studies, the finely tuned physical and
emotional intelligences of our actors had access to more finely tuned
information than most people. This was
especially helpful in our studies on impulse and emotions.
The challenge is in finding ways for the fields to
speak with each other. I appreciate the scientists’ distrust of the arts. We are speaking from opposite experiences and
I could say opposite sides of the brain.
Also, artists in trying to be accepting, fail to exert the quality
control and rigor to match the scientists’ standards. We artist need to step up our game to play
with the scientists because our voice and information is needed to create a
true consilience. It will be in the
unification of all of our perspectives that will help to express our age and
help us to solve our challenges. [iii]
[i]I
recommend reading E. O. Wilson’s book.
It is a great read. Here is a
little more information on Consilience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
[iii]This
is an interesting TED Talk where the scientist Nalini Nadkani has worked with
artists of different types to expand her work on conserving the tree canopy
environments. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/nalini_nadkani_on_conserving_the_canopy.html
E.O. Wilson is one of my Conservation Biology heros. Having spent a large portion of my youth in the theater and now being a science major I am continually amused at how large the crossover is for these two bodies of knowledge. Thanks for the thoughtful essay. xo Kathy
ReplyDelete