To the Editor:
On Friday, Won Joon Choe argued that the science distributive does not belong in a liberal arts education, "Science Distributive Has No Place in Liberal Arts Education," (Nov. 11, 1995). Here is my analysis of why I disagree.
His argument is that science is part of the curriculum because of intellectual relativism, which is the belief that "all academic disciplines demand equal status and respect." However, he wants to follow instead the principles that Plato laid down in the "Laws." This, he claims, means that a liberal arts education "should encourage the emergence of free, autonomous and responsible citizens." This supposedly forces us to focus on humanity, and renders science, particularly hard science, "... as inferior and subordinate to the study of man." In particular, science has "nothing to say on normative questions." Therefore "... comprehensive grounding in the humanities should be required of the science students, while conversely, knowledge of the sciences should not be required of the humanities students."
My basic points of disagreement are as follows. There are good reasons why science should be part of a liberal arts education other than intellectual relativism. Also his goal for a liberal arts education cannot be met without providing some science background. And another proper goal of a liberal arts education should be to help the student to understand the great ideas of our society, including those which come from science.
We live in a technological world where we have to make technical decisions. This is impossible without some scientific background. A short list of typical situations includes personal medical decisions, learning computer applications and interpreting polls. Obviously, a person who is unable to do these tasks is unable to be a responsible citizen in today's world. Many of the courses available for the science distributive develop skills that are important for this. For example Math 5 (in its incarnation as Chance).
Also history shows that great ideas of human society do not respect boundaries. In particular, great ideas of science affect our thought outside of science. The truth of this is demonstrated when you learn about the impact on society of social Darwinism, mechanistic models of the universe, the use of graphs and figures and the use of statistical methods. (A good author who frequently discusses the reverse impact of outside ideas on science is Stephen J. Gould.)
One reason for producing "well-rounded" individuals is to prepare students to be able to understand future intellectual developments. In the past major ideas have unpredictably found novel applications, so this will probably happen again. Therefore exposure to a broad range of great ideas is important to prepare us for unexpected changes in our area. This is part of why Dartmouth insists that all students learn something in several areas, including areas of which we do not see the point. It is not that all areas are equal, it is that history shows us that we cannot accurately predict which areas will affect us.
And science, in particular, is important. It has a tremendous amount of respect. As a result many claims are based on the purported authority of science. To sort through these, we need to understand science. Often, as with pseudoscience or creationism, the claims are clearly unscientific. However arguments for them may still be superficially persuasive if we do not know how to judge science. In other cases, such as sociobiology (read anything by Richard Dawkins) or the environmental movement, there is some scientific validity to their statements. But proponents of any idea typically go too far, and then we have to decide how much of what they say is to be believed. Obviously if we are afraid of trying to understand science, then we are unable to carry out this analysis. On this note, look at the earth sciences courses and many of the environmental studies courses.
In addition, there are a many issues facing our society which actively involve science. And not just environmental issues, there are also social questions about medical ethics, information technologies, and privacy. Plus, in many ways, scientific studies are used in public policy-making. Given that some Dartmouth students will become leaders in our society, Dartmouth has a responsibility to see that its graduates will have some scientific background. To that end the science distributive includes courses like Biology 4, Chemistry 1, Engineering 3 and 4, as well as the courses that I listed previously involving the environment.
There is an example from literature with which I would like to finish. Many of us know that Don Quixote tilted at windmills because he thought that they were giants oppressing the people. To most of us the choice of windmills is a sign of how ridiculous Don Quixote is. However, for Cervantes and his readers, the choice was quite relevant. They knew that the real difference between letting peasants use handmills and forcing them to carry grain to the windmill is that the latter provided landowners with an effective taxation system. Thus the windmills were in truth, and not merely in image, a mechanism of oppressing the peasants. The moral is, of course, that if we ignore technology, then we are as unable to appreciate its effects on our society, as we are to understand the image of the windmill without knowing about technology in the year 1600.
