Idealism and Liberal Education

Science and Liberal Learning

Science and Liberal Learning Colleges committed to liberal education have a special responsibility to think about the meaning ofscience for the citizens ofa democratic society. The achievements of science and technology offer fruitful opportunities and daunting dilemmas for every nation on earth. But particularly they pose challenges for nations, like ours, that govern themselves by democratic processes. For in such nations, citizens must be well informed in order to exercise their civic responsibilities wisely, and that is why colleges, having dedicated themselves to the education of young men and women who possess the high promise of leadership, must insist that liberal education convey an understanding of the laws of nature and of the achievements of scientific inquiry. It is now more than thirty-five years since C. P. Snow delivered his celebrated Rede Lecture, at Cambridge University, on "The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution." In that lecture, he argued that "the intellectuallife of the whole of Western society is increasingly being split into two polar groups": literary intellectuals and scientists. Lord Snow described the "gulf of mutual incomprehension" that existed between the two groups-a gulf comprised of "hostility and dislike , but most ofall lack ofunderstanding" and "a curious distorted image of each other." He lamented that awful gulf because, as he said so well: "This polarisation is sheer loss to us all. To us as people, and to our society . It is at the same time practical and intellectual and creative loss." The polarization to which Lord Snow so trenchantly referred was of fundamental importance when he spoke of it in 1959. It is still of great significance today. When a society's literary intellectuals (by which Lord Snow meant those persons who have received a classical education) cannot converse with its scientific intellectuals, so that each may gain an appreciation of the other's competencies and premises, then, as he wrote, "no society is going to be able to think with wisdom." In the generation since Lord Snow described these "two cultures," the scientific revolution has changed our world at least as pervasively, some would argue, as the Industrial Revolution did the world of the nineteenth century. The disciplines that today comprise science and technology have 77 78 Idealism and Liberal Education made the world considerably more exciting-and more dangerous. They influence the form and content of our culture so extensively that virtually every major decision we make-whether it be political, economic, social, or moral-must take account of their accomplishments. The implications of that influence for a democratic society are profound . The hegemony of computers has revolutionized the ways in which we compile information and manage organizations. The capacity ofphysicians to arrange for the conception of life in a test tube has created moral dilemmas of the most disturbing complexity. The availability of sophisticated life-support systems has presented perplexing legal and religious questions concerning the definitions of life and death. As the achievements of scientific research have become more wondrous -in exploring space and propelling men to the moon, in harnessing nuclear power, in perfecting the most exquisite forms of genetic engineering -our society has responded with pride, rather than with understanding ; with awe, rather than with edification. Science still perplexes us. We often sound like John P. Marquand's protagonist George Apley, in The Late George Apfey, who complained to a friend, "Dear John: I wish there weren't quite so many new ideas. Where do they come from? ... I try to think what is in back of them and speculation often disturbs my sleep." Most Americans in positions of leadership want "to think what is in back" of scientific achievements, but they do not comprehend the basic principles of science clearly enough to do so. They lack an understanding of the relationship of the natural sciences to the humanities and the social sciences; they lack an appreciation of the poetry and drama of scientific inquiry. They lack, therefore, the full measure of perspective that is necessary to "think with wisdom" about the social and political consequences of scientific achievement and technological development. This is acutely disturbing . There are many reasons to emphasize the importance of the sciences in a liberal education. Some are narrowly utilitarian. Education in the sciences , for example, will sustain this nation's fruitful tradition of scientific discovery and technological innovation-a tradition that runs from Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Alva Edison, and George Washington Carver to Percy Bridgman, Jonas Salk, and Barbara McClintock. In addition, education in the...