"I think they should all be Science degrees." she firmly said. "All degrees should be Science degrees."
"What do you mean?"
From the dining room could be heard K T Tunstall's Suddenly I See. Some well-oiled guests were obviously trying to get others to dance.
"Measurable. They should all conform to a set of standards that are based on measurements – using the basis of refutation, like Science papers."
There followed a silence. Could she really be saying this? What did she mean? The objections began to stack up in his mind with an ever-growing cascade of explosive emotions as she continued.
"And their content: all Science. Only things that can be verified through experimentation and observation. All the rest is a complete waste of time."
She sat there, feeling a little pleased with herself. This was a favourite hobby horse she'd ridden into battle many times. None of the counter-arguments offered by others had unhorsed her and she knew how to dodge the blows of sensualists, as she like to describe them.
"So, you're trying to tell me that all the Arts can be ignored?"
"Arts? But can you tell me what Art is, exactly? If you mean merely sitting in front of a pretty picture and telling someone else how it tickles your taste buds, then that's not really very testing now, is it? I mean, that's not challenging post-doctorate-level thinking, at least not as far as I'm concerned. No, if such things as paintings and sculpture are to be made, and I'm not saying they shouldn't by the way, then they should be analysed on a Scientific basis. The composition should stand up to verification and analysis and not be subject to the vaguaries of human 'interpretation'." She used her fingers to emphasise the subjective inverted commas of the word.
"But this is ridiculous! How on earth are we supposed to conduct verification and analysis of paintings? Aren't they all about feelings and emotion? We humans are all about emotion and the Arts show just how these things are. Isn't that why we appreciate them?"
Shaking her head she forced a gappy smile – there was darkness where one or two of her teeth were missing and it gave her voice a slight whistling consistency. "If you leave all enquiry at the level of subjective emotions then we'd never get anywhere. Arts are merely for entertainment, but they shouldn't be the object of intensive scrutiny. They are the servant of man, not the focus."
"I cannot believe what I'm hearing. Surely not every area of life can be reduced to mere Science."
"Of course it can. Every area of life can be covered by an investigative or Scientific discipline. Try to name me one."
He shifted in his seat and changed tack. "But even Science, whatever the term means, is a matter of conjecture. Results are always interpreted and the interpretation can be vague or just plain wrong. Nazi science, or Communist science was biased. In fact, I would go so far as to say all Science is biased because humans are cultural creatures. We don't live in a vacuum, therefore our Science reflects the world in which we live. To say everything can be reduced to verification is doing the very thing you say Science doesn't do – permit the vagueries of human interpretation."
"Ah, but you forgot one thing – peer review. Data is interpreted, yes, but then subject to peer review. Consensus is the way forward. That discipline whittles out biases." She seemed satisfied with her point and sat back in her chair. The rest of the party seemed not to be going on around her.
"But consensus relies on bias. Science is as culturally-bound as a painting by Monet or Turner. It's all about the interpretation."
"Bad Science. If the interpretation is culturally-biased then that's bad Science. No, true Science is pure. It shows us the Universe as it is and is the greatest objective of mankind. As human observers, we use Science as a means to improve our lives and..."
He used her pause to interrupt "But it's a technique. Science is a way of interpreting the world – our way. It doesn't mean that's the way the world really is. Science changes as we change. It is as subject to our interpretation as... pop music in the charts – one minute it's in vogue, the next abandoned as so much foolishness."
"Well, yes, I'll give you that there is a certain History to Science, but that's not the focus of Science. Indeed, I would say that your point proves that Science works. It gets better as we learn more."
He put his drink down getting ready to leave. "But it still doesn't follow that all degrees should be Science degrees. Your argument ignores the veracity of human existence. We think, feel, act, interpret, and a whole host of other things that rely not on Science, but precisely on mere emotion. No matter how you dress it up, our emotions are not bound by the focus of Science. We love, we dance, we paint, we analyse – think about the 'ologies' – Psychology, Philosophy, Sociology, Theology, even Economics: these are nothing more than interpretations. We see and offer conjectures. We cannot prove any of it. You can't prove Freud was right or wrong. You can't prove Adams was right or wrong. That's a matter of conjecture and consensus, two sides of the same coin."
"Why would I want to prove Douglas Adams right? It's merely storytelling to amuse and pass the time."
"I meant Adam Smith – Wealth of Nations and all that. But why not Douglas Adams? If we were to carry on the way you think we should carry on, dismissing fiction as mere storytelling, art as expressive doodlings, ignoring the cultural aspects of Science, then quite simply you're deluded. And delusion, my dear, is not Science."
He got up. She got up. They walked through the dining room where people were by now dancing, said their goodbyes to the host and left the party to go back to their university lecturer's flat upstairs.
Comments