Gordon Gillespie writes:

In 1959, the English writer and physicist C P Snow delivered the esteemed Rede Lecture at the University of Cambridge. Regaled with champagne and Marmite sandwiches, the audience had no idea that they were about to be read the riot act. Snow diagnosed a rift of mutual ignorance in the intellectual world of the West. On the one hand were the ‘literary intellectuals’ (of the humanities) and on the other the (natural) ‘scientists’: the much-discussed ‘two cultures’. Snow substantiated his diagnosis with anecdotes of respected literary intellectuals who complained about the illiteracy of the scientists but who themselves had never heard of such a fundamental statement as the second law of thermodynamics. And he told of brilliant scientific minds who might know a lot about the second law but were barely up to the task of reading Charles Dickens, let alone an ‘esoteric, tangled and dubiously rewarding writer … like Rainer Maria Rilke.’

Sixty-plus years after Snow’s diatribe, the rift has hardly narrowed. Off the record, most natural scientists still consider the humanities to be a pseudo-science that lacks elementary epistemic standards. In a 2016 talk, the renowned theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli lamented ‘the current anti-philosophical ideology’. And he quoted eminent colleagues such as the Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson, who agreed that ‘philosophy is dead’ and that only the natural sciences could explain how the world works, not ‘what you can deduce from your armchair’. Meanwhile, many humanities scholars see scientists as pedantic surveyors of nature, who may produce practical and useful results, but are blind to the truly deep insights about the workings of the (cultural) world. In his best-selling book The Fate of Rome (2017), Kyle Harper convincingly showed that a changing climate and diseases were major factors contributing to the final fall of the Roman Empire. The majority of Harper’s fellow historians had simply neglected such factors up to then; they had instead focused solely on the cultural, political and socioeconomic ones.

In my own book, The Oracle of Numbers: A Short Philosophy of Mathematics (2023), currently only available in the original German, I tried to counter this intellectual parochialism. During my academic training in mathematics, physics and philosophy, I witnessed many instances of this narrow-mindedness and always wondered why highly intelligent people in these fields guarded themselves against major insights from the other fields. I wanted to motivate them, and the inquisitive general public, to open their minds and see that the neverending quest for a better understanding of the world follows many paths.

Ludwig Wittgenstein once said: ‘I want to show the colourfulness of mathematics.’ In that spirit, I placed mathematics at the centre of my project because, in my view, mathematics searches along more of these many paths than any other intellectual discipline. It is connected on a deep level both with the natural sciences and the humanities. It bridges the gulf between them, and it does so by putting certain metaphysical and epistemological dogmas into question, as will become clear in the following.

The divide between the two cultures is not just an academic affair. It is, more importantly, about two opposing views on the fundamental connection between mind and nature. [Continue reading…]