The heated debate between Pinker and Wieselter on the combination of science and the humanities raises the question of whether there should be a boundary between both.Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay First, it is clear that Steven Pinker was defending science against criticism from uneducated fundamentalism and jealous left-wing academics. The article argues that science can be used as a means of establishing an ideal political and cultural vision. He effectively argues that science is not an ideology that negates other forms of expression but rather enhances the understanding of nature. He clarifies that science is not responsible for the disasters that have occurred in history, because they have contributed to more success than harm. The article continues to argue that science does not refute other ideologies but rather dispels false claims considered fundamental principles. Pinker introduces his article by briefly introducing scientists who he believes have made significant contributions to the development of science; however, he also expresses his criticisms of science and effectively refutes arguments. He believes that science has made a substantial contribution and is thus recognized. Pinker also argues that science can prove to be a means of establishing correct political and cultural views. For example, he claims that science has simplified historical debates and political science, implying that he does not view them antagonistically. By analyzing the correlation between disasters and science, Pinker proves that science does not attack other ideologies. He supports this by emphasizing that the underlying principles of science aim to increase knowledge and disprove false statements and beliefs. He says critics would counter that “scientific ideas and discoveries struggle against our traditional religions and moral teachings.” Second, Pinker approaches this statement with his belief that science must be free from biased judgment, including religious ones. Although he did not provide further evidence to support his view, he was able to refute criticism with examples that science is capable of undermining religion by questioning the views of pre-modern religious beliefs. For example, he believes that religion and science should belong to the same field, because science is capable of informing our moral values ​​and educating us on the outlook on life. Additionally, it redefines the meaning of "scientism" by stating that scientism is acceptable if used to refer to a method of investigating the universe. Thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, and Hume were recognized for their ideas due to the lack of formal theory and empirical data. Pinker emphasizes that people working in the humanities should welcome what science can offer their field of study instead of feeling its intrusion. Additionally, Pinker highlights the contributions of historical scientists to areas such as human nature. However, as science seeps into the humanities, it becomes susceptible to criticism. For example, scientific knowledge not only provides evidence, but it is also evaluated beforehand and opened to others for peer review and enhances its credibility to avoid any mistakes made during the experimental phase. For this reason, it is notwise to admit that science diminishes the importance of the humanities and vice versa. In "Crimes Against the Humanities", author Léon Wieseltier countered Pinker's view by stating that science has little relevance to morality and politics because it is not philosophical. . Wieseltier also argues that the superiority of science over the humanities is meaningless. Furthermore, the emergence of “digital science” has given new meaning to the humanities, as Wieseltier points out as a form of refutation of Pinker's argument. He argues that scientific discussions of morality, politics and art should be classified under the category of philosophy. He argues that science can be classified as a worldview, but not in a humanities context. Similarly, Wieseltier claims that Pinker seeks to claim rationality as part of science rather than the humanist tradition to strengthen his own position. Scientists like Pinker don't just use the humanities as a way to prove the existence of science. Wieseltier justifies his position by claiming that scientists are more eager to attest that this is due to the complexity of the humanities which exceeds the scope of scientific understanding. As Pinker claims, the correlation between philosophy and science does not consider that philosophy must belong to the same category as science. Likewise, the study of human nature does not view social psychologists and behavioral economists in the same way. Wiseltier disputes Pinker's statement by arguing that science confers no special authority, implying that knowledge gathered from science can never be the basis of life. The major problem is that famous scientists assume that fields such as physics or any other discipline allow them to preach on larger issues. As Wiseltier points out, "some scientists feel irritated and self-pitying at the humanist insistence that there is in the world what science can reveal", this means that one cannot say that scientific expertise provides deeper insight into the nature of life or living. light of truth. However, the humanities could, to some extent, learn from science and its discoveries. Likewise, scientific expertise does not necessarily imply special knowledge of human nature. In general, Wiseltier describes Pinker's position as reductionist and materialist. Thanks to science, we are increasingly quantified. He believes that scientism should instead focus solely on a method, but rather on an attempt to condense knowledge into quantifiable terms. According to him, the scientist believes that science receives the most criticism from two fields, namely religious fundamentalism and academic humanities, which view scientific thinkers like Pinker as problematic. He believes that the subject of religion focuses more on subjective individual benefits rather than objective benefits like science. For believers in religion, they rely solely on the existence of God which is a matter of philosophy. Wiseltier also implies that Pinker's view of scientism is one-dimensional, as his approach of explaining through science and undermining religion proves him to be an absolutist. Therefore, science is unable to cover such a wide range of areas. Furthermore, Wieseltier brings up the idea that particular subjects that remain insoluble with science do not make them a mystery, but that rational explanations 2020].