The heated debate between Pinker and Wieselter on combining science and humanities raises the question of whether there should be a boundary between the two. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay First, it is clear that Steven Pinker defended science against criticism from both ignorant fundamentalism and jealous left-wing academics. The article argues that science can be used as a means to establish an ideal political and cultural vision. He effectively argues that science is not an ideology that denies other forms of expression but rather enhances understanding of nature. Explain that science is not responsible for disasters that have occurred in history as they have contributed more to success than harm. The article continues to defend the fact that science does not disprove other ideologies but rather dispels erroneous false claims as primary 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 criticism of the science and effectively refutes the arguments. He believes that science has contributed substantially and is therefore given credit. Pinker also argues that science can prove to be a means of establishing correct political and cultural visions. 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 demonstrates that science does not attack other ideologies. He supports this by pointing out that the underlying principles of science are intended to increase knowledge and disprove false claims and beliefs. He says critics would counter that "scientific ideas and discoveries fight against our traditional religions and moral teachings." Second, Pinker approaches this statement with the belief that science must be free from any biased judgments, including religious ones. Although he did not provide further evidence to support his view, he was able to refute criticisms with examples that science is capable of undermining religion by challenging the views of pre-modern religious beliefs. For example, he believes that religion and science should belong to the same sphere because science is able to inform our moral values ​​and educate us on the conception of life. Furthermore, it redefines the meaning of "scientism" by stating that scientism is fine if it is used to refer to a method of investigating the universe. Thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, and Hume were credited for their ideas in the absence of formal theory and empirical data. Pinker emphasizes that people working in the humanities should embrace what science can offer their field of study rather than resent its intrusion. Additionally, Pinker highlights the contributions that scientists have made to history in areas such as human nature. However, as science gradually permeates the humanities, it becomes susceptible to criticism. For example, scientific knowledge not only provides evidence, but is also pre-evaluated and opened to others for peer review and strengthens its credibility to avoid any errors made during the experimental phase. For this reason, it is imprudent to agree that science diminishes the importance of the humanities and vice versa. In “Crimes against the Humanities” author Leon Wieseltier counters Pinker's point of view by stating that science has littlerelevance to morality and politics because it is not philosophical. . Wieseltier also argues that the superiority of science over the humanities was nonsense. Furthermore, the emergence of “digital science” has brought new meaning to the humanities, as highlighted by Wieseltier as a form of refutation to Pinker's thesis. He presents that scientific discussions of morality, politics, and art should be classified as philosophy. He argues that science can be classified as a worldview, but not in a humanistic context. Similarly, Wieseltier claims that Pinker seeks to claim rationality as part of science rather than the humanistic tradition to strengthen his own position. Scientists like Pinker don't just use the humanities as a means to prove the existence of science. Wieseltier justifies his position by arguing that scientists' greater desire to attest to themselves is caused by the complexity of the humanities that is beyond the scope of scientific understanding. As Pinker argues, the correlation between philosophy and science does not believe that philosophy should belong to the same category as science. Likewise, the study of human nature does not treat social psychologists and behavioral economists equally. Wiseltier disputes Pinker's claim by arguing that science confers no special authority, implying that knowledge gleaned from the sciences can never be based on life. The main problem is that famous scientists assume that areas like physics or any other discipline allow them to preach about broader issues. As Wiseltier points out that “some scientists and scientists feel susceptible and self-pitying about the humanistic insistence that there is in the world what science can reveal,” this means that scientific expertise cannot be said to provide deeper insights into nature of life or light of truth. However, the humanities could learn to some extent from science and its discoveries. Likewise, scientific expertise does not necessarily imply a special insight into human nature. Overall, Wiseltier describes Pinker's position as reductionist and materialist. Thanks to science, we are becoming more and more quantifiable. He believes that scientism should instead be exclusively about a method but rather about attempting to condense knowledge into quantifiable terms. According to him, the scientist believes that science receives most of the criticism from two areas, namely religious fundamentalism and academic humanities, which consider scientific thinkers like Pinker problematic. He believes that the topic of religion focuses more on subjective individual benefits rather than objective benefits such as science. Religious believers only rely on the existence of God which belongs to philosophy. Wiseltier also implies that Pinker's view on scientism is one-dimensional as his approach to explaining through science and undermining religion proves that he is an absolutist. Therefore, science is not able to cover such a wide range of areas. Furthermore, Wieseltier raises the idea that particular topics that remain unsolvable with science do not make them a mystery but rather rational explanations can arise from philosophical and emotional theories. The complexity of human nature is not easily explained since the evolution of nature is rather inconsistent. Similarly, Wieseltier counters that areas such as literature and art are also guided by truth and support logical methodologies open to debate and criticism. This implies that, since science is a new topic, 2020].