In this blog post, I will examine the causes of misunderstandings and prejudices between science and the humanities through Richard Dawkins’ ‘Unweaving the Rainbow’, and explore ways in which these two fields can communicate and converge across their boundaries.
What image do people outside the STEM fields have of science and scientists? The critical perceptions of scientists held by the general public, as recently conveyed through the mass media, were somewhat shocking. They portray scientists as people with a narrow-minded outlook who are unaware of the human condition and who, while neglecting reflection on the foundations or fundamental ideals of science, cling solely to their own scientific research achievements. Conversely, many people in the STEM fields also hold a negative perception of humanities scholars, viewing them as anti-intellectual and as people who pursue romance and illusions. When did these misunderstandings and prejudices between science and the humanities begin?
The intellectual tradition of the 19th century, which had made the pursuit of universal knowledge possible, began to crumble in the 20th century due to the glorification of specialized knowledge that fueled the Industrial Revolution. This accelerated the pace of progress, and at some point, the knowledge a person could grasp in a lifetime became only a tiny fraction of the vast body of knowledge available. Consequently, humans inevitably became fragile beings who knew nothing beyond their own fields. Furthermore, ignorance of other fields within their respective domains led to mutual misunderstandings and prejudices, creating a structure of confrontation. However, even if we acknowledge that it is beyond human capacity to become an expert in every field, the notion that one need only know one’s own field is not justified. As long as civilization continues to develop, humanities scholars cannot be detached from science, and as long as they live in human society, scientists cannot be detached from the humanities.
In South Korea, I believe one of the causes that has disrupted the balance and harmony between these two fields—and created so-called “science idiots” and “humanities idiots”—lies in the structure of education and college admissions, which has placed excessive emphasis on specialization. In fact, the system of dividing high school curricula into humanities and science tracks has been criticized for decades. This is because an education that emphasizes only specialization can lead to unbalanced thinking and an inferiority complex toward other fields. However, this issue needs to be addressed with consideration for the current educational system. The 2015 revised curriculum introduced common subjects for all students regardless of track, established “Integrated Social Studies” and “Integrated Science,” and the 2022 revised curriculum was also restructured to expand students’ subject selection options and inquiry skills. Therefore, it is difficult to argue that the Ministry of Education officially adheres to the humanities-science division system as it did in the past. However, just because the curriculum has shifted toward an integrated model does not mean that the perceptions stemming from this division or the exam-oriented learning culture have completely disappeared; thus, the issue of striking a balance between expertise and interdisciplinary thinking still warrants consideration. Amidst a flurry of misunderstandings and prejudices from various perspectives, as someone in the field of science, I was pondering how to reduce the aversion that non-scientists have toward science when I suddenly recalled Richard Dawkins’ book ‘Unraveling the Rainbow’. In fact, I had come across ‘Unraveling the Rainbow’ two years ago in a college Korean literature class, but since I had intended to quote a specific passage, I hadn’t read it thoroughly. While the book covers a variety of topics—including the popularization of science, poetic science, critiques of superstition, and examples of bad poetic science—I was particularly struck by the section where the author, in line with his original intent, addresses and clarifies the various criticisms leveled at science in general. In the book’s preface, Richard Dawkins expresses his personal despair over the harsh criticism and feedback readers directed at his other work, ‘The Selfish Gene’. He recounts that a foreign publisher confessed to losing sleep for three nights straight, so distraught was he by the cold and bleak message he received after reading ‘The Selfish Gene’. Criticisms of this sort—that science brings only bleak desolation or a dry message that robs us of joy—are frequently leveled at science as a whole. He states that he attempts to address these issues more positively by appealing to the wonder that science brings.
The author explains that he took the title of this book from a poem by the British Romantic poet John Keats, who believed that Newton had destroyed all poetic inspiration by reducing the rainbow to the colors of a prism. According to Richard Dawkins, Keats’s dissatisfaction with science and technology was common among Romantics at the time. Romantic poets viewed the task of “unraveling the rainbow”—analyzing many natural phenomena that had been regarded solely as enigmas, mysteries, or divine miracles, and revealing the secrets hidden within them—as an act that destroyed beauty. Richard Dawkins argues that John Keats’s view was entirely mistaken. He points out that when Newton “unraveled the rainbow” using the colors of a prism, spectroscopy advanced, and spectroscopy became central to much of what we know about the universe. Building on this foundation, scientists such as Einstein, Hubble, and Hawking emerged to explain the universe’s secrets and its very nature. We are now able to see and understand much more about the universe, which we once felt was merely vaguely distant and vast. Through this, we have come to experience a new kind of beauty that was previously unimaginable. The author argues that this beauty can be found not only in the rainbow of light but also in the rainbow of sound and the rainbow of DNA. Through this, the author asserts that the sense of wonder science can evoke is the highest experience the human mind can attain, and that its artistic impact is comparable to that of the finest music and poetry.
Written in Richard Dawkins’s characteristic vivid and accessible prose, this book presents a variety of topics through logical reasoning, though it shows limitations in its structure. Chapters 1 through 5 faithfully reflect the author’s intent to counter the criticisms of anti-science advocates by highlighting the positive aspects of poetic science, thereby providing excellent examples of such science. However, the focus of the text becomes blurred as Chapter 2 is devoted to the popularization of science, and Chapters 6 through 8—spanning three chapters—list examples of poor “poetic science.” By attempting to cover too much ground—not only the theme of science and poetic imagination revealed in the book’s title and introduction but also the general public’s distorted perception of science as a whole—the text lacks cohesion. Nevertheless, Richard Dawkins’ ‘Unraveling the Rainbow’ is significant in that it shatters the prejudice that all imagination must be humanistic, presenting readers with a new perspective on “poetic science” and the ultimate goal of interdisciplinary integration between science and literature. Furthermore, since the other topics that stray from the main argument are equally interesting and thought-provoking, readers who already fully understand the wonders and appeal of science may find it more effective to focus on Chapter 2, which discusses the popularization of science, and Chapters 6 and beyond, which address bad poetic science, rather than Chapters 3, 4, and 5, where Dawkins unravels the rainbow.
Snow, the author of ‘The Two Cultures’, made the following statement during a 1959 lecture at the University of Cambridge:
“In fact, I am speaking seriously. It is my belief that intellectual life throughout the Western world is increasingly splitting into two extreme groups. When I speak of intellectual life here, I am referring to the vast majority of our actual lives, because I cannot believe that these two spheres of life can be distinguished from one another at their deepest level.”
He points out the conflict between the “science culture” and the “humanities culture” and emphasizes that harmony must be achieved between the two. To achieve mutual harmony between the two cultures, there must first be active communication among scholars belonging to both cultures. Drawing a line between the two cultures and criticizing one another while remaining ignorant of each other’s cultures amounts to a meaningless debate. Only when efforts to understand each other’s cultures are accompanied by active efforts to dispel prejudices about one’s own culture and to help others understand its essence can mutual harmony—and ultimately, the fusion of the two cultures—be achieved.
The problematic phenomena presented in this article are “the extinction of the integrated intellectual due to the rise of specialists” and “the public’s ignorance or hostility toward the work of scientists.” It is interesting that the author cites Newton and Keats as historical examples of this issue. The observation that scientific work does not destroy the wonders of nature but rather brings about new wonders is noteworthy. However, it seems that a considerable amount of specialized prior knowledge is now required to experience these scientific wonders. Therefore, I suspect that the public’s prejudices toward science are unlikely to disappear based on this observation alone. The disconnect between intellectuals in the humanities and the natural sciences is a serious problem that has long been pointed out. The lively discussions about “convergence” in recent years are also aimed at resolving this issue. The author proposes a solution involving “efforts by intellectuals on both sides to communicate and overcome prejudice,” but this alternative seems somewhat vague. Given that modern intellectuals face increasingly high demands for specialization, it is difficult for them to acquire the breadth of knowledge required to understand a wide range of fields. This is not merely a matter of “effort.” It would be better to propose a more realistic alternative. Furthermore, the evaluation of the coherence of Dawkins’s book and the brief introduction to its table of contents seem to distract the reader’s focus from the main theme of this article. It would be better to focus more closely on the theme of the disconnect between the humanities and the natural sciences.
The problematic phenomena presented in this article are “the extinction of the integrative intellectual through the rise of experts” and “the public’s ignorance or hostility toward the work of scientists.” It is interesting that the author introduces Newton and Keats as historical examples of this issue. The observation that scientific work does not destroy the wonders of nature but rather brings about new wonders is noteworthy. However, it seems that a considerable amount of specialized prior knowledge is now required to appreciate these scientific wonders. Therefore, I suspect that public prejudice against science is unlikely to disappear based on this observation alone.
The disconnect between intellectuals in the humanities and the natural sciences is a serious problem and has long been pointed out. The lively discussions on “convergence” in recent years are also aimed at resolving this issue. The author proposes an alternative solution to this problem—“efforts to foster communication between intellectuals on both sides and to overcome prejudice”—but this alternative seems somewhat vague. Given that modern intellectuals face increasingly high demands for specialization, it is difficult for them to acquire the breadth of knowledge necessary to understand a wide range of fields. This is not merely a matter of “effort.” It would be better to propose a more realistic alternative.
Furthermore, the evaluation of the coherence of Dawkins’ book and the brief introduction to its table of contents seem to distract the reader from the main topic of this article. It would be better to focus more on the theme of the disconnect between the humanities and the natural sciences.
