|
Science:
Who Needs It?
At
our school all students are required to take a
minimum of six courses in the natural
sciences: three in the biological sciences and
three in the physical sciences, regardless of
the student's major. Students majoring in the
humanities often have to struggle to get
through these demanding courses, and their
grade-point averages usually suffer as a
result. It has been suggested that the
requirements be modified, reducing the number
of natural science courses required so that
students can take more courses directly
related to their majors. As a humanities
major, I admit this would make college life a
lot easier for me, but I still oppose the
measure because natural science courses provide
us with a crucial part of our education.
Students
majoring in the humanities usually object to
taking such science courses because they claim
the courses are irrelevant to their majors.
“What good will physics do me when I'm
teaching Spanish?” a friend of mine asked.
It's true that physics, chemistry, biology,
and the like may not have a direct application
to most careers in the humanities, but this
objection ignores one of the key issues of a
university education. A university is not
simply a training facility; it is an
institution of higher learning where students
are educated, not merely trained. Even the
term university implies that it's a place to
obtain a general knowledge base; a university
education means the student has been educated
in many subjects. Since part of our universal
knowledge is science, it is and logically
should be a part of the university curriculum.
Humanities
students might accept this argument and agree
that they should take some natural
science, but not as many courses as are now
required. They might suggest a one-semester
course in biological science and a
one-semester course in physical science, along
with perhaps one semester of math for
non-majors. This, they argue, would expose
them sufficiently to the universe of science.
If the point of a university education were
merely to expose students to a variety of
subjects, then I might agree. But a university
education implies more than mere exposure.
After all, people can be exposed to subjects
by watching television. Again, the purpose of
going to a university is to get an education.
What does that mean? It means more than just
training and exposure; it means that students
learn enough to become critical thinkers in
the various disciplines. It means that they
should gain enough understanding of the
sciences, humanities, social sciences, and the
arts to be able to discuss issues in these
areas intelligently and to be able to question
other people's views rather than just accept
what people tell them.
One
or two semesters of general science cannot
sufficiently educate students in this field.
What one learns in natural science courses is
more than mere factual information. One learns
to think critically, to approach problems
logically, to use reasoning. And this takes
time. It takes work. It takes studying
different areas of science and applying the
general principles in laboratory situations.
Developing a critical ability in science is
important, but why? In addition to providing
the student with a universe of knowledge, an
understanding of science is vital in our
highly technological society. We are all
confronted with issues involving nuclear
waste, chemical pollutants, medical advances,
exploration in space, and so forth. In order
to make intelligent decisions---in fact, even
to be involved in the decision-making
process---people need to have an understanding
of these issues that goes beyond mere
”exposure.” Otherwise, the uneducated
become mere puppets who, out of ignorance, can
but nod in agreement with anyone who professes
expertise.
Finally, I contend that science courses do
have relevance to the humanities, and this is
through the critical thinking approach of the
scientific method. The scientific method is an
approach to solving problems, an approach that
has been tried and proven. It is an approach
that demands that the researcher obtain
support for his or her hypotheses. Courses in
the humanities demand critical thinking as
well. Students of literature must support
their interpretations with “evidence” from
the literary work; art majors must test their
ideas---or hypotheses---by experimenting and
drawing conclusions. True, in these fields one
does not follow the formal scientific method,
but it is the practice with that way of
thinking that can benefit students in other
fields.
Science courses, then, provide us not
only with knowledge that is crucial for
intelligent functioning in our society, but
they also provide us with the opportunity to
develop our critical, logical reasoning
skills. Although these courses are difficult
for the nonscience majors, they are well worth
the effort. The knowledge and thinking skills
gained from these courses make us less
vulnerable to charlatans and politicians as we
more intelligently and critically evaluate the
propositions offered to us. |