The Place of Science and Technology in the Liberal Arts Curriculum

Leonardo, Vol. 16, No.4, pp. 316-319, 1983. Printed in Great Britain. 0024--094X/83 $3.00 + 0.00 Pergamon Press Ltd. THE PLACE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE LIBERAL ARTS CURRICULUM* DavidS. Saxon** The important task facing this Conference on Science and Technology Education for Civic and Professional Life [l] is to address the question of the pervasive lack of knowledge and· understanding of science and technology amongst those most educated of Americans, our college graduates. And, at a more fundamental level, to address, at least with respect to science and technology, the question of what constitutes a genuinely liberal education in this technological society and age. But not merely to address these questions; to propose as well a course of action based on the answers. A significant first step has already been taken; we agree that our technological illiteracy-as it has been called-is a major problem, even a national scandal. This Conference is itself testimony to the fact that there is a consensus about the seriousness of the problem, so we start out that much ahead. Teaching science to liberal arts students is something I have always taken seriously, from the moment I began teaching physics more than thirty-five years ago. And I know just how hard it is, having tried to do it myself on many occasions over those three and a half decades, using a variety of approaches, and having been responsible for a failed textbook on the subject. Be assured; I am under no illusions. I offer no simple prescriptions. Nor do I offer a prescription about just what it is that constitutes a liberal education. What I offer is, first, an attempt to define exactly what the problem is, to define precisely what I think we mean when we talk about our lack of knowledge and understanding of science and technology; second, an attempt to understand what the roots of that problem are; third, a brief attempt to define the proper place of science and technology in the liberal arts curriculum. I have spoken on-and struggled with-certain aspects ofthis topic before. I have spoken to my colleagues in the sciences about their share ofthe responsibility-and perhaps blame-for the extent of our scientific illiteracy and suggested steps that they ought to take in their own intelligent self-interest to address that problem. A few years ago, in an address to the Phi Beta Kappa Society, I emphasized the corresponding responsibility of students and faculty in the humanities. I have also talked to a group of broadcasters about the way the news media add to the problem and what they need to do to play a proper and responsible role. As I did on those occasions I will begin by defining the problem. Simply stated, the problem is that we are quite unable, as a society, to distinguish between sense and nonsense when it comes to science. The problem is that educated, intelligent, inquisitive people are unable consistently to bring informed judgment to bear on questions connected in almost any way to science and technology, questions often vital to the welfare of each of us and indeed to the future of the world. Instead, the *An abridged version of the article that appeared in the American Journal of Physics 51, I (1983). Reprinted by permission. **Physicist and educator, President of the University of California, 1975-83, now Chairman of the Corporation of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A. 316 great majority of broadly educated people must rely on, and are at the mercy of, the testimony and assertions of ·others. Furthermore, the degree of reliance required demands a faith that borders on the credulous. One of the distinguishing characteristics ofa liberal education is that it should providejust that critical sense which makes it possible to winnow out the meretricious from the meritorious. Yet many liberally educated people are unable to do anything of the sort when it comes to science and technology. That this is indeed the case is not an original observation, or even a new one. Over fifty years ago George Bernard Shaw summed it up when he said, "We...