The Age Old Debate (Not Really)

I've always been perplexed by those who adamantly pit science and humanities against each other as if there were mortal enemies. Propogated at AB by the likes of Noeth and Anthony, and their respective disciples, this debate rages in high school as if there was a true conflict.

In the midst of a Frankenstein discussion, Anthony, a self-admitted humanities advocate, once again dragged up the topic of science v. humanities. "Be careful, you science people," she warned. "You must take responsibility."

Interesting that Anthony should frame the debate this way, as if science were a rampant monster strewning destruction through society. Of course there are morally ambiguous areas of science, but there is no need for debate on whether science has changed society for the better or the worse. Science is far, far from a destructing force; it is the foundation on which our society lies. If Anthony would prefer a world where everyone sits around in Socratic seminars discussing the inherent nature of man, that is fine. But this Socratic seminar would take place in a lightless stone cave.

Ironically, in urging responsibility of scientists, Anthony also demeans the work of her treasured humanties. Are humanities so trivial to society that its creators have no need to take responsibility? Does the work of a poet, musician, philosopher, writer, filmmaker or theologian have no bearing on society? Absolutely not. These creators, as any scientist, must shoulder their responsibiltiy as well.

On a wanton whim, the atomic bomb can kill millions. But how many people has religion killed? The Crusades. The genocides. The suicide bombs. Conflicts continue to rage. Religion, originally a march toward peace and harmony, has provoked and caused the death of untold millions in the course of history. And these deaths were made possible with increasing deadly technology.

There is no inherent divide. Ideas and techonolocy work in tandem toward destruction or creation. It is our choice. We must all take responsibility.