To the Editor:
I am writing in response to Won Joon Choe's editorial "Science Distributive Has No Place in Liberal Arts Education," (Nov. 11, 1995). Choe asserts that a classical view of education "rightly considers studies devoted to the knowledge of the stars, of the animal world or of mechanics as inferior and subordinate to the study of man."
Choe is wrong to say that science is inferior to the humanities. Both disciplines enrich our lives and cannot be ranked according to their relevance to the study of man. Science has provided us with computers, medicine, genetic engineering and technology that vastly benefit society. For someone who enjoys all the comforts provided by scientific advancements, he is quick to renounce their importance to mankind.
Part of education is preparation for life after college. Even philosophers in their ivory towers must make a living. Many humanities majors will eventually end up in law or business, and it certainly will not hurt them to have a general background in computer science and math. While Plato's version of education is appealing now, it may seem less so upon entering the job market.
To overlook science because the concepts are abstract and do not deal directly with humans is to unnecessarily limit one's education. Many of the complex issues that face society today are grounded in science. How can we hope to tackle questions regarding environmental protection and medical ethics if most of society does not have a basic understanding of the facts that underlie these problems?
Like it or not, science pervades contemporary societal problems and the job market. To renounce science as irrelevant to a liberal arts education is short-sighted and narrow-minded. Common sense should tell Choe that a functional society needs at least as many doers as it has thinkers, but if he needs a philosopher to tell him so I would advise him to read "A Dynamic Theory of History" in "The Education of Henry Adams."
