The art of science; a reply to Redfield.

Abstract

Redfield's prescription of more humanistic studies for social-science students to counteract too great concentration on technique may not be successful, since the demand for and prestige of technique are so great in our culture. What Redfield says of the art of social science is equally true of the art of any science. Sciences are social inventions; they grow up in a very unscientific way. The choice of problems which determines the course that a science will take is personal and reflects the values of the scientist. The humanistic imagination required of social scientists is of the same kind as that required of all scientists. The social scientist has no advantage, and may have a disadvantage, from the fact that he is a human being studying human beings. Physical science can be as liberalizing and enriching as the social sciences and the humanities, depending on the way it is taught.