Science and the Liberal Arts
Out of all academic disciplines, the sciences always seem to stand apart. At any university and college, from Wabash to MIT, people seem to regard science as somehow different. America is a scientific culture. We look to science in the forms of medicine, agriculture, and energy production to solve our problems. Thus, it is no surprise that science is set on a pedestal in academia. But is the praise it receives warranted? Viewed in the context of the liberal arts, the value of science is questionable. Here at Wabash, we are educated “to think critically, act responsibly, lead effectively, and live humanely.” Does science meet these high standards of a liberal arts education? It is important to first consider the limitations of science before drawing a conclusion in this respect. Only by weighing the pros and cons of science can we truly make an informed decision on its usefulness.
Thinking Critically.
A great portion of undergraduate science education, particularly in physics and in chemistry, is the use of mathematical formulas to achieve answers. To put it more bluntly, a good chunk of science is plugging in given variables into a formula and pulling out an answer. There is no critical thinking involved in this process. Granted, these formulas are often quite difficult to derive and solve, so science may not be easy, but there is a huge difference between thinking hard about a problem and thinking critically about it. Thinking critically almost necessarily involves taking a risk that the answer is not correct. For example, when we think critically about how to solve the health care problem in our country, we make a sort of educated guess that might be disproven when tried. When we think hard about the amount of energy needed to push a 2-kg object up an inclined plane raised 24 above the horizontal at a speed of 5 meters per second, we can always check our answer and have not doubt in its accuracy.
Acting Responsibly.
Science, when taken in a vacuum, is a hindrance to responsible acting. Our culture’s obsession with science has made us less responsible as a society. Since the scientific development in the areas of abortion and birth control, sexual responsibility and morality have given way to promiscuity and broken families. The connection here is often disputed especially by those on the left, but when we apply a little logic to the fact that about half of all marriages end in divorce, that nuclear families are becoming a thing of the past, and that we have moved from teaching our children to abstain from sex to teaching them to have safe sex, the correlation is clear. Additionally, our culture seeks to obscure these issues deeper into the recesses of science by hiding them under the cloak of the term “reproductive health.” Science cannot single-handedly inform our decisions if we wish to act responsibly, and the current state of affairs in our country give prime testament to this fact.
Leading Effectively.
There are no rules for effective leadership. Flexibility is key in making the decisions demanded from a leader. Science, which often deals in absolutes, offers little help here. Effective leadership comes about only through experience, trial, and error. Scientific studies on the methods and effects of leadership have limited benefit without being combined with practical knowledge and flexibility.
Living Humanely.
There is often a sort of battle in society that is construed as science versus religion. The most prominent example of this battle is in the area of stem cell research. The humane course of action, I humbly submit, is to prohibit the use of human embryos in these sorts of experiments. Such experiments rob unborn children of their dignity and life. Of course the debate is much more subtle than this, but a detailed enumeration of the arguments is outside the scope of this article. The point is that there are clearly concerns about how humaneness of stem cell research, and they ought to be taken and debated seriously. Science in a vacuum would continue this research unimpeded, at the cost of humane living. There must be something to inform our consciences apart from science.
The Redemptive Qualities
At this point, many people will conclude—and some already have concluded—that science should not be considered a liberal art, that it is a demonic force in society, and that it is superfluous knowledge valid for nothing more than speculation and technological advances. However, this totally misses the point of science. So far this article has not done justice to science, and it is important to consider its many merits.
In terms of thinking critically, science is much more than formulas and numbers. The creative knowledge required to expound new theories and to devise experiments to test these theories is incredible. The ingenuity of Ernest Rutherford when he performed his gold foil experiment that discovered the positively-charged nucleus of the atom is an amazing feat of critical thinking, as was Antoine Lavoisier’s revolutionary methods of experiment that form the foundation for modern chemistry. Also, science teaches us a new way to act responsibly when it uncovers the phenomenon of global warming, a phenomenon that many conservatives rather irrationally and stubbornly regard as political propaganda. The modern scientific advancements in communication and data gathering allow us to gain knowledge to help us effectively lead and improve our businesses, schools, government, and other enterprise. Scientific studies of teaching methods and other areas of leadership can and do, when combined with sound experience and practical considerations, improve the quality of the leaders of our communities. And without science to increase our standard of living and that of the less fortunate in society, we would not be fulfilling our charge to live humanely. So the value of science is undeniable and not to be ignored.
Science is neither a cure-all, nor a depraved discipline, though both of these labels are often placed on it: the former primarily by liberals, and the latter by radical conservatives. Science is an academic discipline vital to life, but it is only beneficial when combined with good philosophy and good politics. It is important, but cannot be taken in a vacuum. The beauty of a liberal arts education is that we do not have to compartmentalize our knowledge by specializing exclusively in science, philosophy, history, or religion. Science deserves no special status as a discipline, but neither does any other subject. The true liberally educated Wabash man will respect the accomplishments of science, but recognize its limitations. Science indeed ought to inform our consciences, but our consciences should also be informed by the other academic disciplines we learn in college and in life.
Related posts:
