Commentary

Home Opinion & Ideas Commentary

November 13, 2011

Why the Liberal Arts Need the Sciences (and Vice Versa) By Mary Crane and Thomas Chiles
There is no question that liberal-arts education in the 21st century needs to re-examine both its definition and its scope. While many people assume that the humanities are firmly and solely centered at its core, many others ask: Is that still the case? How would liberal-arts education look if science played a more prominent role? At a recent symposium at Boston College's Institute for the Liberal Arts, a panel of experts from the sciences and the liberal arts explained, from their perspectives, why science matters at a liberalarts university. Their arguments seem beyond dispute: It matters because knowledge of science is necessary for an understanding of global warming and species extinction, of the causes and history of human violence, of the ways in which humans alter the natural course of evolution, of the ways in which technology and digital media shape our access to information and to each other, of how technology informs our decisions and influences public policy, of the misleading use of statistics, and of our access to big questions about the nature and origins of the universe. The most important answer to the question, however, is simply this: Science matters at a liberal-arts university because the problems facing our global community will not be solved by scientists alone. A common theme throughout the symposium was the need for more scientists to better communicate the importance of "big science" and the implications of its findings to the public. For example, while the significance of using public funds to support research to understand the causes of neurodegenerative diseases is obvious to most Americans, using public funds to support the study of quantum string theory might not be; while an issue as complex as global climate change needs scientists to identify its root causes, it also needs faculty members in the humanities and social sciences to evaluate its impact on human populations and societies, and

journalists to communicate this information to the wider public. In our environmentally and economically challenged, highly technological world, it is crucial that we improve our ability to understand and critically evaluate scientific evidence and arguments. One way to do so is through partnerships between faculty in the natural sciences and faculty from disciplines like journalism, economics, sociology, political science, and philosophy. Together they can develop ways to communicate knowledge about technology and the sciences in an accessible and compelling manner, and to explain the broader relevance of scientific discovery to society. How can we encourage these partnerships? We can start by removing a few key barriers:
The barriers to cooperation, one of which is the realor sometimes imaginarycompetition for our universities' available resources. Faculty in the humanities often resent the amount of money allocated to big science and let that resentment keep them from cooperating with colleagues who have laboratories. The natural sciences also feel threatened, with highly competitive financial support subject to the vagaries of the economy, and the percentage of projects approved for funds dropping into the low teens and single digits. The barriers of time, which include efforts to balance teaching, research, and the imperative to publish with service to the university. In the case of the sciences, there are the additional responsibilities of managing complex labs and preparing proposals to gain private and governmental support. T hose obligations can keep faculty members from talking to one another, much less to their colleagues in other departments. The barriers of individual disciplines, which encourage faculty to be insular, preferring to talk to people who speak the same disciplinary language. Contemporary cultural theory and philosophy sometimes question scientific positivism in ways that can be off-putting to scientists. Sometimes professors in the humanities and social sciences feel that it's their job not the job of those in the natural sciencesto teach students about evidence, argument, and the evaluation of information. Some may even fear that these bodies of knowledge will be superseded by science, engineering, and technology, since it often seems that contemporary culture, even within the academy, values science more.

These barriers are counterproductive. We must focus less on what divides us and more on our commonalities, like our shared commitment to careful and rigorous analysis of evidence, and our presumably common desire to see public discourse about important issues, like climate change, the economy, evolution, and even the nature of the universe, carried out in a more responsible way. We also share a dedication to the education of our students, who will form the educated public of tomorrow. It's up to us to ensure that they receive a liberal-arts education that provides them with the skills to critically evaluate information content, its sources, and its relevance. And while the discussion, reading, and thought that are the hallmarks of the humanities are necessary preludes to effective action, students of the liberal arts will be ill-equipped to deal with our complex world without a firm grounding in statistics, computer science, knowledge of the scientific method, and technological literacy.

The political crisis surrounding the financing of education and scientific research has placed in jeopardy this country's future as a leader in science and technology. These problems cannot be solved by scientists and educators alone, but will require an informed public that can, in turn, influence public policy. We need to train our students to make responsible and ethical decisions based on their evaluation of scientific evidence. We need to motivate them to actto go beyond discussion and to identify solutions to preserve and sustain the planet for future generations. If faculty in the humanities and the sciences let our differences divide us, we will end up like Congress, so polarized that we fail both the planet and our students. We must agree to do better than that. Mary Crane is the Rattigan professor of English at Boston College and director of the Institute for the Liberal Arts. Thomas Chiles is chairman of the biology department at Boston College.
Comments
Powered by DISQUS

Add a com m ent

Log in to post with your Chronicle account: Don't have an account? Create one now. Or log in using one of these alternatives:

Show ing 18 com m ents

Sort by Oldest first

Follow comments:

by e-mail

by RSS

Real-time updating is enabled. (Pause)

Bonalibro 4 weeks ago

Enabling people of diverse fields to communicate with, and be appreciated by, others outside of their specialties is definitely an advantage, but there is a much simpler reason that I would cite that has to do with personal experience. Probably the best and most inspiring teacher I ever had was my high school biology teacher. He made learning such a joy that it cured me of the lassitude with which I was infected by mediocre teaching, and my attitude towards his class spilled over into other classes. Though I never went on in the sciences I retained an interest in reading about science, particularly cognitive science and have great respect for scientific knowledge. In college, I studied humanities for a while, using a pseudo scientific methodology that I considered bunk. So I quit that and took up economics and political science, while remaining an auto-didact in literature. I pursue fiction writing as an avocation, with political economy as an underlying theme, but my favorite fiction author writes about science, though not science-fiction. Also, in university I had a class in astronomy for non science majors that, because of the teacher, was the best class I took as an undergraduate. The fact is, we never know where inspiration will come from, which is why a broad based curricula is important in higher education.

15 people liked this.

Like

marionroydhouse 4 weeks ago

This piece reinforces the long standing two cultures divide, rather than undermining it, which I assume was the real goal. The most effective liberal education programs aim for the integration of learning across disciplines and curricular and co-curricular experiences. Students need to understand that the sciences, humanities and social sciences are part of the essential learning needed for interpreting the world around us, no matter what their major or profession, and whether they are in the sciences or the liberal arts. Many general education reforms across the county have as their goal integrative curricula that bring together science and liberal arts faculty with this integrative aim. Why is this particular call for collaboration problematic? The implication is that the humanities and social sciences faculty are slow to engage. Perhaps there is also another issue at play. Some science programs have failed to change their teaching methods to meet the needs of current students. This has meant that the reach of science and math in undergraduate programs is not as strong as it might be. Physics has seen a great deal of federal funding involving shifting from lectures to experiential learning, with Dickinson being an example that I am familiar with, where the change has been effective. On my own campus, Philadelphia University, physics professor, Mark Liff has led the way. The STEM initiative has attacked this national problem with many great programs. A focus on strong teaching and learning on both sides of the divide posited here will do much to improve student understanding of current debates on science and technology as well as producing more science and math graduates.

3 people liked this.

Like

tardigrade 3 weeks ago

"The most effective liberal education programs aim for the integration of learning across disciplines and curricular and co-curricular experiences." Is this statement evidence-based (and if so, what evidence? and how is "effective" defined in terms of long-term consequences?) or mere assertion?

1 person liked this.

Like

nematollahi 3 weeks ago

OK, "water bear" (yes, I know what a tardigrade is). Good point that hard data would be nice. However, I'm sure you yourself depend every day on *anecdotal* evidence to make decisions, such as what brand of car, computer, slacks, or soup to buy, every much as marionroydhouse. Have you never considered someone either a polymath or an ignoramus simply by listening to him or her? Have you never told a student "Apply (or don't apply) to this grad program" based on observation, small sample size, and word of mouth, rather than some magazine's ranking of it (based on some straw poll or other)? Few of us have enough time in the day to dig up all the relevant, properly collected data. I made my comment based on working with students who had taken and had not taken physics. I did not document every incident, but I am as certain that my observations hold for the vast majority of those who had no background in physics as I am of my research data. We all draw conclusions based on simple observation. If you have any data, including your own anecdotes, to refute marionroydhouse, let's see them.

Like

tardigrade 1 week ago

I have no data, but I am a 33 year old undergraduate who has been in and out of 5 tertiary schools (received an A.S. from one of them), stared down 4 stories onto concrete, received a 1330 SATs the end of my freshman year of high school. I'm used to being damned by the good intentions of other people who don't listen to me. I've read about at least one data set in which those at the very bottom and very top (e.g. me) are thrown out, and then that data set used to justify policy.

A shit-ton of angst drives my critiques and vitriol, and will continue to drive them, and for good reason. I hope you're right for your students sake, and I hope you do not make the best the enemy of the good enough. And god do I hate the humanities and the gen. ed. requirements. I've forgotten more than those classes (save writing and speech) teach, and it is so very difficult to be forced to dumb down and slow down for so long and for no good reason. My user name comes from an electron microscope of a tardigrade on a biology text of years ago. It was truly beautiful, thus I chose the phylum as a user name.

Like

nematollahi 4 weeks ago

Does anyone remember C. P. Snow's book *The Two Cultures and a Second Look*? Lack of communication is usually the biggest problem in formal institutions, and lack of broad education and training maintains ignorance. The problem is compounded by non-majors courses that are so watered down they do not solve the problem. I am not referring just to, say, some chemistry for non-majors courses; I am also including some American society and some music appreciation courses. The sad thing is that many schools seem to be removing distribution requirements, even within their broad areas. For example, in natural sciences, many biology baccalaureate programs no longer require physics. I am a biologist; trust me, those graduates lacking physics do not function well in laboratory or field work. Hardly any biology programs require earth and space sciences either. Never mind the relevance to ecology and aspects of physiology. I am told some medical schools no longer require physics for their applicants. How those medical students could handle their physiology classes is beyond me, and I would not want one of them as my physician. Are we trying to go backward? Natural sciences are not alone. In social sciences, how many programs require that one take a year of psychology and a year of sociology? Do they not explain the basis of all economic and political responses? How many humanities programs require a year in philosophy or in the "other humanities", namely, the visual and performing arts? Why are the arts almost never allowed to fulfill breadth requirements? If we do not understand one another's interests, avocations, and professions, we become like newlyminted technicians in our outlook. We become unable to listen and find common ground. I believe we need to get some sort of national standards for the minimum breadth for an associate's and a bachelor's, but I suspect I shall be called both a leftist and a rightist for such a suggestion.

1 person liked this.

Like

veritasvosliberabit 4 weeks ago

When I was an undergraduate I thoroughly enjoyed the philosophy of science, and when trying to relate some of the ideas of lets say, Imre Lakatos, to my science major friends, we were definitely not playing the same language game.

Like

nematollahi 3 weeks ago

Did you attend Johns Hopkins? Your moniker for these weblogs is their motto.

Like

couchmar 3 weeks ago

"The barriers of individual disciplines, which encourage faculty to be insular, preferring to talk to people who speak the same disciplinary language. Contemporary cultural theory and philosophy sometimes question scientific positivism in ways that can be off-putting to scientists. Sometimes professors in the h iti d i l i f l th t it' th i j b t th j b f th i th t l i t

humanities and social sciences feel that it's their jobnot the job of those in the natural sciencesto teach students about evidence, argument, and the evaluation of information....These barriers are counterproductive." I'm not sure what to make of this passage. I have no sympathy for cultural theory which has made all sorts of ridiculous claims in the name of criticism. But the rest of this quote I find strange. Have either of you ever been to a conference in philosophy of science? Half of the philosophers of science out there have degrees in science disciplines in addition to their other degrees. It seems to me that the authors are focusing too much on what passes for criticism in English and other departments and not what goes on in mainstream philosophy programs. I would encourage you to attend the Philosophy of Science association meeting (which is interdisciplinary) to witness the kind of serious engagement between scientists and humanities scholars taking place. Don't forget that Thomas Kuhn earned a degree in physics before going to work as a historian in a humanities department. And I shouldn't need to explain that Daniel Dennett is another philosopher who takes science seriously. As to the suggestion that "sometimes professors in the humanities and social sciences feel that it's their job.....to teach students about evidence, argument, and the evaluation of information." Do you realize that Aristotle discovered Logic? At my university, we offer at least five sections of Elementary Logic and one section of Symbolic Logic (largely for math majors) every semester. Am I to believe that Philosophy departments are wrong to think they have something to teach students about "argument and evaluation of information" by doing this? Do you know that Galileo held the title "court mathematician and philosopher" working for the Duke of Tuscany? That Bacon was a philosopher who contributed to the scientific method? I'm sympathetic to the authors' idea that science is important and should be widely appreciated by humanities faculty. But the authors should not neglect the work being done by humanities professors as well.

3 people liked this.

Like

nematollahi 3 weeks ago

You do realize your moniker for these weblogs is very close to the French word for "nightmare", don't you?

2 people liked this.

Like

swagato 3 weeks ago

Your final paragraph is beyond question, but I have some reservations about your dismissal of "cultural theory" earlier on. No, I'm not a pained English graduate student or anything; I'm just a humanist. While we can certainly admit that during the heyday of the "cultural turn," many claims were made that in the sober light of historicity seem excessive, or just plain silly, I don't think it is at all wise to dismiss "cultural theory" with a broad brush as you do. Cultural theory is, after all, the best mix of critical theory and literary criticism. Critical theory, as I'm sure you'll admit, is by no means 'ridiculous'; unless we are to dismiss Weber, Gramsci, Benjamin, the whole Frankfurt School, Habermas, Fredric Jameson, Foucault, Baudrillard, et al. On the other hand, literary criticism comes under far greater criticism from the general public, perhaps because the notion of "discovering things in text" sounds silly from a lay perspective. However, as I'm sure you'll grant again, the discourse of literary criticism has impacted nearly every field of the humanities, with the mere study and criticism of language itself expanding to incorporate dissections of power and influence, social structures, questions of gender, knowledge, etc. Let's not be too hasty to dismiss "what passes for criticism" in departments of English, and let's not be overly simplistic in our questioning of the contributions of cultural studies.

Like

jcbjr 3 weeks ago

The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) has a phrase for what's being promoted here: LIBERAL EDUCATION. Interested readers are encouraged to visit their webpage and read the materials provided about liberal education. As an emeritus engineering faculty member, I long ago encountered the phrase and championed it as the goal I had for my students and all students.

Like

3rdtyrant 3 weeks ago

My question is this: when did the sciences stop being part of the Liberal Arts? The Trivium (rhetoric, logic, and grammar) and Quadrivium (arithmetic (number it itself), geometry (number in space), music (number in time), and astronomy (number in space and time)) include in one way or another all sciences, since the ideas learned in the seven liberal arts apply equally in every field. The only division, I think, is that between the liberal arts and servile arts. While the "hard" sciences are not necessarily servile arts, they are both practical and theoretical, and therefore stand with one foot in both camps, requiring both the liberal and servile arts to recognize both their value and their utility.

10 people liked this.

Like

art_of_nurture 3 weeks ago

Science is almost universally misunderstood. It is frequently misrepresented, not only by the mass media but also by many scientists who are not careful with their words. When the impression is given that science provides us with the Truth about some phenomenon, and later it turns out that the findings reported had to be retracted, then many people conclude that science is a sham.

Science can only know when a certain theory is false. Science can show with growing certainty that a theory is reliable and that one can have confidence in its predictions. Some theories, such as quantum mechanics, have de facto tests every time that certain common devices are used. Such a theory can be regarded as having very high reliability, and yet tomorrow some experiment may reveal that it is false. (All swans are white until you go to Australia.)

Everyone needs to understand that in many fields an empirically valid set of observations, the basis and test for theories, will be built up slowly as a mosaic of individual results. The mosaic can appear to be building toward one picture at one time and yet look much different as more pieces of the mosaic are determined. Respect for the power of empirical findings to overturn any previously accepted "truth" is something that everyone needs to understand -- not just scientists. Teachers, in particular, need to gain a nuanced awareness of what they are really measuring with their examinations, and how statistically valid those results are.

In a world that establishes negative stereotypes on the basis of a tiny bit of factual information (e.g., skin color, nose shape, eyelid structure, etc.) and a great number of preconceptions, it is extremely important for all individuals to understand that humans impose concepts of their own creation on an infinitely varying nature. In the sciences it is common to explicitly recognize these conceptual systems as models or, in other words, "convenient fictions." A "fiction" is something that is human-made. Many of the things that humans make are incredibly beautiful and useful. Nevertheless, our creations need to be validated.

In a world that often operates by telling people what they ought to believe (frequently as a way to get people to do what they "ought" to do), it is a condition for being a competent citizen that one understand the dynamics of belief determination.

3 people liked this.

Like

philosophy 3 weeks ago

This article pretty much seems to regard the liberal arts as restricted to the humanities. Bosh! The liberal arts for centuries have included the sciences (including social sciences which long ago didn't have their current labels but were at least incipiently present in the liberal arts) and mathematics. Plus, of course, all the humanities. What the liberal arts don't and shouldn't include are the professional and pre-professional disciplines such as engineering, business, medicine, K-12 education, et al.

4 people liked this

Lik

4 people liked this.

Like

mkt42 3 weeks ago

Exactly. I don't understand the purpose of the panel (I suspect the fault is the reporters', not the panel's). Look at the requirements at any well-known strong liberal arts university or college -Chicago, Columbia, Swarthmore, etc.: they all require all students to take a significant number of classes in the sciences and humanities and typically the social sciences too. I suspect the same is true at the not-so-well-known liberal arts programs too, but I haven't literally checked all of them. A strong grounding ACROSS disciplines is what a liberal arts education is all about, and has been for ... certainly decades, and arguably centuries as mentioned above.

2 people liked this.

Like

David M. O'Neill 3 weeks ago

I believe consilience is laudable but, in our current US culture-scape at least, I suspect its a fools errand if the intent is to effect a "new" culture. Im not saying holism applies but its a weak link from the development of communal understanding and agreement in valuing truth and pursuing purposeful (eco-humanistic?) action within educational institutions - and - the resulting effects that effort will have on and in society. Consider the range, power and influence of other institutions in discord that apply: polity, pulpit, press, proletariat, and private enterprise. Add to that the tide of a more emotive and less educated populace, and the focus on and call for unification of regard across educational disciplines seems trifling. Our greatest threat is not the notion that "we the people" have "the right" to believe what we want - it is that we believe it is righteous to act on it!

Like

zatavu 3 weeks ago

I could not agree more. That is why I run Evolution and Literature at http://evolutionandliterature.... and Austrian Economics and Literature at http://theliteraryorder.blogsp... where I use scientific approaches - evolutionary biology and scientific economics -- to understand literature and literary production.

Like

Copy right 201 1 . All rights reserv ed. The Chronicle of Higher Education 1 255 Twenty -Third St, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037