Thursday, November 28, 2013
Ortega Hypothesis
The Ortega hypothesis (after Jose Ortega y Gasset) states that average and mediocre scientists contribute over time to the development of science and that the major breakthroughs happen through a culling of all this work, yet one name is usually recognized. I'm wondering whether you could apply this to the humanities as well. Literature doesn't seem to work in this way. Frequently, commentators draw connections between works from any time and I wonder what would happen if this connective way of understanding the progression of ideas can work with the sciences. It doesn't seem likely. In a way, and I'd like people to poke holes in this, I think the sciences are the farthest away from culture as an intellectual pursuit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
An interesting exception is Darwin, whose books many biologists still read to find new and promising avenues of inquiry. He was perhaps the last of the great gentlemen scientists, well-educated in history, literature, philosophy, art, etc., and the vocabulary of science was still within reach of an ordinary educated person. Only a relative handful since have even tried to bridge the sciences and humanities.
ReplyDeleteIt's really depressing. I wish science today had the literary capabilities of many of the great thinkers of the past. A lot of the scientific literature I've had the chance to read from being at MCLA and on my own from recent years just doesn't do it and it seems like these poorly written pieces eventually contribute to a great scientific epiphany. Do you know whether Ortega took into consideration Darwin or whether anyone criticized him for not doing so?
Delete