Although, like Mel, I was bothered by the young lady in the film, in a way I was even more bothered by the young gentleman. As I said in my previous (long) post, I don't have a problem with people going into computer graphics per se; but given the situation that we are in as a nation, and the likelihood that it's going to get worse before it gets better, I sort of have this personal opinion that anyone who is capable of going into math, science, and engineering probably should. Call it patriotism or practicality, I don't care which. The plain fact is that America needs scientists and engineers, and the idea of someone with great potential in those areas going into computer graphics just seems like such a waste. It's like Melville wanting to write fortune cookies. Or perhaps more aptly, like Einstein wanting to do movie special effects. I'm not saying the kid in the film was an Einstein, but if our modern Einsteins all go into computer graphics, we're in trouble.
All that being said, as a scientist I hold an opinion that non-scientists might find perplexing, though they shouldn't. Even some scientists might find it perplexing, though they shouldn't. In my opinion, no society should ever be founded on science as its bedrock. Science is not designed to establish or comment on morals or societal codes of conduct; which is not to say that it should not be restricted by them. On the contrary; since science cannot quantify right and wrong, it has no place discussing them, and absolutely should be restricted by those external codes.
As a scientist, I worry about the sorry state of science education in America, but I actually worry more about the overemphasis of science in our culture at large; about the way that the media, either through ignorance or as willing perpetrators of disingenuousness, treat science almost as a source of Ultimate Truth, and scientists as some sort of Delphic priests of that Truth. Anyone who practices science honestly knows that it is a method of inquiry in which absolute statements are intentionally and inherently limited to disproof. Any logical structure that limits itself to disproof cannot possibly be the ultimate authority on anything, since it can never prove anything. To paraphrase the great American physicist, Professor Richard Feynman, a scientist should always--especially when talking to scientific laypeople--bend over backwards to explain every way in which he could be wrong. Thus, the quasi-reverent attitude with which science is sometimes treated in our modern culture disturbs me.
I absolutely do believe that we need more scientists and engineers; and I absolutely do believe that we need to do everything we can to up the level of science and math in America... tremendously. At the same time, I worry about the pendulum swinging too far; because in my eyes, there are ways in which it already has swung too far. The humanities and the arts are essential to me because without them, with only science, we are left with no way to reasonably deal with societal necessities such as concepts of right and wrong; or with so many other things that are central to the human experience. Yes, we need more scientists and engineers, but they need to be well-rounded scientists and engineers. They need to be well-rounded human beings.
I would especially be interested in the thoughts of my colleagues in the humanities on this subject, so please feel free to post replies!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Noah,
I was logging on just now to add a post which would be similar, though less erudite, to this one. I note that the only pro liberal arts voice was the loser dad of the young lad (Neil?). He saw the liberal arts as a positive, but he was paunchy, balding, and had a small kitchen.
He noted the value of "thinking" instilled by the study of the liberal arts. It was this which attracted me (I am your ghostly self, Noah) from the sciences to the humanities.
My post was to be entitled "The Death of the Liberal Arts." I see value, of course, in these things, and not just as a means to make science more comprehensible. I think that the struggle of the human heart, the existential conundrums that come from simply being human, are worth discussing, and that the liberal arts classroom is, at least potentially, vital--both to the development of the individual and to the development of society.
Mel
Thanks, Mel.
I agree completely with your last paragraph; especially the part about those existential conundrums being worth discussing. To be human--as every human knows--means far more than just the clinical (albeit phenomenally complex) scientific descriptions of human life.
Noah
How about a philosophy and ethics class added to the Humanties curriculum? In my thinking, the study of philosophy is the counter balance to the absolute faith put in science these days!
Dick
P.S. I concur in the value both of you place on the Liberal Arts...essential to develop a good scientist or engineer. Also, fosters creativity.
It appears to me that China is turning out automatons with little ability to think creatively. They may end up being the worker bees in the scientific community, but the real leaders, the entrepreneurs, are the free thinkers. It's a pity that their educational system, which tracks students early on based on performance in primary school, pushes all of the top students this way. China may well be the world's leader in engineering in the near future, but society is not founded on engineering. Perhaps this proclivity toward science education and de-emphasis on free thought is necessary in a communist society.
I have zero evidence to back me up, but I would have a hard time believing that our school system is more successful at producing free thinking, creative leaders than Chinese schools. I would agree that it is important to be well rounded, but I think it is unfair to categorize all of their students as robots.
Post a Comment