TITLE: An Example of the Difference Between Scientists and Humanists
AUTHOR: Eugene Wallingford
DATE: January 27, 2014  3:29 PM
DESC: 
-----
BODY:
Earlier today,
<A HREF="https://twitter.com/wallingf/status/427812579616903168">
   I tweeted</A>
a link to
<A HREF="http://www.erikweijers.nl/pages/translations/psychology/the-origin-of-consciousness/summary.php">
   The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind</A>,
in which Erik Weijers discusses an unusual theory about the
origin of consciousness developed by Julian Jaynes:

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>
 [U]ntil a few thousand years ago human beings did not 'view
 themselves'.  They did not have the ability: they had no
 introspection and no concept of 'self' that they could reflect
 upon.  In other words: they had no subjective consciousness.
 Jaynes calls their mental world the <B>bicameral mind</B>.
</EM></BLOCKQUOTE>

It sounds odd, I know, but I found Jaynes's hypothesis to be
a fascinating extrapolation of human history.  Read more of
Weijers's review if you might be interested.

A number of people who saw my tweet expressed interest in the
article or a similar fascination with Jaynes's idea.  Two
people mentioned
<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind">
   the book</A>
in which Jaynes presented his hypothesis.  I responded that
I would now have to dive into the book and learn more.  How
could I resist the opportunity?

Two of the comments that followed illustrate nicely the
differing perspectives of the scientist and the humanist.
First,
<A HREF="https://twitter.com/leftside/status/427828187586764800">
   Chris said</A>:

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>
 My uncle always loved that book; I should read it, since I
 suspect serious fundamental evidentiary problems with his
 thesis.
</EM></BLOCKQUOTE>

And then
<A HREF="https://twitter.com/eamillikin/status/427846557740720128">
   Liz said</A>:

<BLOCKQUOTE><EM>
 It's good! I come from a humanities angle, so I read it as
 a thought experiment &amp; human narrative.
</EM></BLOCKQUOTE>

The scientist thinks almost immediately of evidence and how
well supported the hypothesis might be.  The humanist thinks
of the hypothesis first as a human narrative, and perhaps only
then as a narrow scientific claim.  Both perspectives are
valuable; they simply highlight different forms of the claim.

From what I've seen on Twitter, I think that Chris and Liz
are like me and most of the people I know: a little bit
scientist, a little bit humanist -- interested in both the
story and the argument.  All that differs sometimes is the
point from which we launch our investigations.
-----