Referring to John Brockman's idea of a "third culture" of scientist-writers and the dawn of a new age of humanism, he suggests that intellectuals outside the sciences do need to engage with science: "Humanism's received task is more deferential toward the autonomy of science: To truly understand our most fundamental conditionings; to ensure that scientific paradigms truly fertilize philosophical and even literary discourse."

Culture is "born from the cross-fertilization of individual disciplines". Rather than seeking to unify all fields of knowledge beneath the banner of science, Pániker joins French philosopher Edgar Morin in calling for a spirit of "transdisciplinarity", which "aspires to a communication between the disciplines based on complex thought".

I agree very much with Pániker's argument. You can't ignore science, but neither should you be a passive consumer. As someone who writes about the history of science, literature and film, finding those moments where these different fields meet and produce new ideas is what it's all about.

It reminds me of a memorable quote from the late great Kurt Vonnegut: "I think that novels that leave out technology misrepresent life as badly as Victorians misrepresented life by leaving out sex." 

Pániker's article is on Brockman's site, Edge.

And while we're on the subject of the two cultures, there's an amusing blog on poetry and science by Shirley Dent at Guardian Unlimited. Tim Adams has also written an intriguing piece for the Observer on "The new age of ignorance". It's interesting that in this article, Brockman says Vonnegut was one of the leading novelists who declined to take part in the meetings with scientists, artists, architects, and musicians that eventually became Edge. I wonder why...

Despite this Ian McEwan somehow snuck beneath the wire and even gets to write the introduction to Brockman's book. As McEwan rightly says the contributions do indeed express "the spirit of a scientific consciousness at its best".

One contributor claims rather darkly that "we are simply overadvanced fungi and bacteria hurtling through a galaxy in cold, meaningless space" - a comment that probably illustrates the dangers of posting comments while suffering from a bad hangover (be warned bloggers).

But generally there is an emphasis on positive predictions: we are not alone in the universe (Paul Davies); we will circumvent the speed of light (Ray Kurzweil); "there is a future much better, in terms of reduced human suffering and increased human potential than the present". The latter, inspiringly upbeat prediction comes from Oliver Morton, author of the excellent Mapping Mars.

It's a great book for reading on the tube, as its bite-sized contributions are ideal for short journeys. My own favourite is from mathematician Verena Huber-Dyson: "most of what I believe I cannot prove, simply for lack of time and energy." I know the feeling. Back to the editing then...

So what do you believe but cannot prove? Let me know!

[originally on MySpace]