4 Comments
User's avatar
Dan Ehrenkrantz's avatar

As I understand these words “ambition” and “humility” are not opposed to one another. The revolution that science brought (and still brings) is a) the humility that we don’t know how the world works and b) the ambition, and a method, to find out. Science progresses by creating hypotheses and then discarding and revising those hypotheses when something comes along that doesn’t quite fit. Science has to stay humble but it doesn’t shrug its shoulders and say that since it can only offer hypotheses, all hypotheses are equally valid. It is willing to say that a hypothesis was wrong (or incomplete) and keep seeking. Applying this to the social sciences and humanities is tricky. But that’s the challenge.

Expand full comment
Brandon Merrill's avatar

I agree. I think humility and ambition are complimentary. I wonder if part of the seeming trickiness of applying the scientific method to social science and humanities is that they are "soft" sciences whereas hard sciences are more conducive to quantifiable measurement and control. It's maybe harder to isolate variables in social sciences. I'm not a scientist in any domain, though, so who am I to say?

Expand full comment
Terry Freedman's avatar

Very interesting observations about intellectual ambition. Thanks

Expand full comment
Brandon Merrill's avatar

Thanks, Terry!

Expand full comment