Why are Humanities More Instinctive? Debunking Misconceptions
Many people mistakenly believe that the humanities are more instinctive than the sciences. This belief often stems from misunderstanding the nature and methods of humanistic studies. In this article, we aim to clarify these misconceptions and explore the true essence of the humanities as academic disciplines.
Primitive Instincts vs. Humanistic Studies
The assertion that humanities deal with living people and rely on non-scientific methods creates a false dichotomy. It suggests that the humanities, which focus on understanding human behavior, society, and culture, are less grounded in reality and more reliant on unproven instincts. However, this perspective is overly simplistic and overlooks the rigorous methodologies employed in the humanities.
For instance, while science seeks to explain the material world through observation and empirical evidence, the humanities address complex human experiences, values, and meanings. Philosophers, psychologists, and political scientists delve into the subjective, interpretative, and often philosophical realms of human existence. These disciplines rely heavily on reasoning, critical thinking, and analysis rather than mere instinct.
Misunderstanding the Humanistic Approach
Some argue that humanities are more instinctive because they focus on what it means to be human and the abstract concepts of goodness, beauty, and truth. This line of thinking can perpetuate misunderstandings about the nature of humanistic research.
Let's consider the role of speculation in humanities. According to Oxford Dictionary, the term "speculative" is used in the context of humanistic analysis, yet this does not imply unscientific thinking. Speculation is a crucial part of humanistic inquiry, where researchers hypothesize, theorize, and explore nuanced ideas about human experience. However, these speculations are grounded in historical, cultural, and social contexts, not mere instinct.
Anthropology: A Blend of Science and Humanism
Anthropology exemplifies the intersection of science and humanities. While anthropologists study human societies and cultures using scientific methods such as ethnography and fieldwork, their interpretations and analyses often involve rich, interpretative descriptions of cultural practices and beliefs. This dual approach ensures that anthropological insights are both grounded in empirical data and reflective of humanistic concerns.
Nonetheless, some modern humanities departments, particularly in the context of social justice movements, have embraced a more unscientific approach. Critics argue that these departments make absurd, false claims about issues such as biological sex, race, and identity. This has been labeled as the “SJW” (social justice warrior) phenomenon, a term used to describe the politicization of academic discourse.
Confronting Bias and Ideological Influences
The assertion that humanities are inherently more instinctive than science is often rooted in presentist bias. The opinions and moral questions examined in humanistic studies can indeed change over time and contexts, reflecting societal values and cultural shifts. However, this fluidity is a strength, not a weakness of humanistic inquiry.
For instance, the results of humanistic research can be affected by current moral questions, but this does not diminish the value of reasoned analysis and evidence-based conclusions. The humanities help us understand the complex interplay of morality, ethics, and lived experiences. Twentieth-century philosopher and social critic Alasdair MacIntyre’s concept of “practical wisdom” (phronesis) underscores the importance of both empirical knowledge and ethical reasoning in humanistic studies.
Conclusion: The Nature of Humanistic Inquiry
While it is true that humanistic studies often involve speculation and interpretative analysis, these approaches are far from unscientific. The humanities, through rigorous methods and interdisciplinary insights, seek to understand the intricacies of human behavior, culture, and society. Claiming that humanities are more instinctive than science is a mischaracterization that ignores the breadth and depth of humanistic research.
The humanities, from philosophy and psychology to literature and history, lay the foundation for rational and ethical work, providing us with the tools to navigate the complexities of our ever-evolving world.