By Stevin Gehrke
EO Wilson is a non-Christian biologist (an expert on ants) who also is known for his writing on the relationships between science and religion. In contrast to the so-called ‘new atheists’ like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who find nothing of value in religion, Wilson believes that religion is an evolved behavior with natural selection advantages. He published a book in 1998 called Consilience to describe a need for the combination of knowledge from science, the humanities and the arts. Though he approaches the topic from a completely different set of foundational principles from Christians, I recently ran across some quotes from this book that resonated with me both as a regular reader of RenMus and as an engineering professor. The quotes below are taken from Wikipedia, which I’ve not had opportunity to verify (I’ve only read about the book, I’ve not read it myself), but I found it interesting that someone like Wilson echoes some of the concerns raised on this blog.
If the natural sciences can be successfully united with the social sciences and humanities, the liberal arts in higher education will be revitalized. Even the attempt to accomplish that much is a worthwhile goal. Profession-bent students should be helped to understand that, in the twenty-first century, the world will not be run by those possessing mere information alone. Thanks to science and technology, access to factual knowledge of all kinds is rising exponentially while dropping in unit cost. It is destined to become global and democratic. Soon it will be available everywhere on television and computer screens. What then? The answer is clear: synthesis. We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom. The world henceforth will be run by synthesizers, people able to put together the right information at the right time, think critically about it, and make important choices wisely.
The quote opens with an intriguing statement that the study of the natural sciences can revitalize the liberal arts education. (As an aside, I have had a sense that is true and may make some comments along this line in a future post, but these ideas are quite fuzzy in my mind. But perhaps the readers of this blog can weigh in on this point in particular.)
To draw on my own experience, this “synthesis” of knowledge is the key goal of engineering education. The capstone senior courses in engineering (usually with “Design” or “Synthesis” in the titles) focus on teaching students how to integrate the knowledge they have gained in their other courses to solve a complex problem without a specific or single solution. While students have always tended to compartmentalize knowledge, engineering educators broadly believe that teaching synthesis of knowledge is an ever-increasing challenge in our courses. Most faculty have heard from students, with varying degrees of seriousness, “Why do we need to take classes [apart from earning the credentials for a job] when all the information is on the internet and quickly found using Google?” Wilson in this 1998 quote has concisely stated that the problem is not the ability to access information, but knowing what to do with that information – essentially, wisdom. But how can wisdom be taught?
Again, in Consilience Wilson also opines:
Every college student should be able to answer the following question: What is the relation between science and the humanities, and how is it important for human welfare? Every public intellectual and political leader should be able to answer that as well. Already half the legislation coming before the United States Congress contains important scientific and technological components. Most of the issues that vex humanity daily - ethnic conflict, arms escalation, overpopulation, abortion, environment, endemic poverty, to cite several most consistently before us - cannot be solved without integrating knowledge from the natural sciences with that of the social sciences and humanities. Only fluency across the boundaries will provide a clear view of the world as it really is, not as seen through the lens of ideologies and religious dogmas or commanded by myopic response to immediate need. Yet the vast majority of our political leaders are trained exclusively in the social sciences and humanities, and have little or no knowledge of the natural sciences. The same is true for the public intellectuals, the columnists, the media interrogators, and think-tank gurus. The best of their analyses are careful and responsible, and sometimes correct, but the substantive base of their wisdom is fragmented and lopsided.
Here in the opening sentence, Wilson lays out a challenging question that I think most professors (never mind their students!) have some difficulty answering. Yet I agree that a clear answer is important to develop. Farther along in this quote, Wilson lays out some of the rationale for including a general education in the sciences as something important and in fact necessary for anyone who claims to be “well-educated” in any discipline, and for anyone who holds a position of responsibility and respect in society. It has been a constant aggravation in my adult life, as one educated in the natural sciences and engineering, to read and hear frankly ignorant statements made by the sorts of people described in the quote above, and extending to some theologically trained leaders in the church whom I greatly admire and from whom I have learned much. Even Wilson’s disparaging reference to “religious dogmas” (which I am sure he meant to apply to all religious teachings) can be accepted from an orthodox Lutheran perspective, when one interprets that phrase to mean any heterodox views strongly held without understanding or reflection.
Now, an education in science and engineering education doesn’t automatically produce great and wise leaders either. Although I reject the opinion I sometimes hear from colleagues in the liberal arts that education in these fields is only a step above a vo-tech education in auto mechanics and the like, it is true that engineers and scientists often fail to understand or anticipate the implications of their work. I try to bring up examples in my courses of cases where clever engineering solutions were rejected by society because a technological solution was not in fact THE solution (for an orthodox Lutheran, surgical abortions safe for the mother could be put into that category).
To be accredited, all engineering programs are required to have a liberal arts component in their degree programs, but in my opinion, these are not well-integrated into the engineering curricula across the US. Perhaps a Wittenberg education can provide the foundation for making better engineers and scientists as well as humanists?
[Graphic: Tycho Brahe, 1546–1601, shown with his instruments]
17 comments:
Steve, thanks for this post. Let me probe a bit further. I think the stand-out point you make here is that in respect of wisdom. Your piece here points out 2 types of failure in respect of wisdom. The first is the failure of scientists to think through the implications of their work (the example you adduce is safe surgical abortions). The other type is the failure of non-scientist heirs of the Wittenberg Reformation in their handling of the sciences. What sort of curriculum do you think can address that? I guess my question goes to how a person might shape a curriculum so that a student who took it might have a fruitful, life-long, and thoughtful conversation with the sciences, that treated them not out of suspicious ignorance but out of knowledgeable respect. Perhaps put another way: is there a method to be learned (that wouldn't necessarily bring the student "up-to-date" in scientific discovery) or a content, whereby you'd bring the student to a certain depth-level in the sciences or in a particular science?
Let's put it yet another way: what if the goal of a Wittenberg education is to produce students ready for a life well-lived and not "teachers" or "practitioners of English as a discipline" or "engineers" or "theologians" any such thing (but capable, with further study, or not, of doing a wide variety of things)? What would a good scientific education look like for such a student? How would that student achieve a functional "wisdom" in respect of the sciences?
Thanks again!
jon
How about a couple of pilot program classes in liberal arts designed and taught together by one lib arts prof and one science prof. They could be labeled XYZ for science majors.
Can I be a fly on the wall while they design the classes?
Seriously, such a project could be fun for a couple of older profs near retirement who can really reflect on it.
How about a couple of pilot program classes in liberal arts designed and taught together by one lib arts prof and one science prof. They could be labeled XYZ for science majors.
Can I be a fly on the wall while they design the classes?
Seriously, such a project could be fun for a couple of older profs near retirement who can really reflect on it.
Jon-
You're welcome. I'm glad to know you're interested in considering the topic.
I'm not really sure what the curriculum should look like, I've never read anything by a Lutheran who has considered this (this is a statement of my ignorance not a criticism of Lutheran educators generally). The table of contents of Wilson's book suggests a fairly standard description of scientific materialism, and I don't see in this list an explicit discussion of curriculum.
I would think that at least 4 semesters of science covering chemistry, biology and physics would be necessary, as these are the foundational natural sciences. These need to be understood at a level that allows one to understand their role in our modern technological society, and more fundamentally, these are God's creations, so wouldn't an orthodox Lutheran want to appreciate God's creation? Is it really true that understanding the physics of a rainbow destroys appreciation of its beauty, as I was once told by an acquaintance (which stuck me as an argument for ignorance)? Rather, wouldn't (shouldn't?) this enhance our appreciation of the elegance of God's creation?
Mathematics should be taken through differential equations. Typically, this level of mathematics takes 4 semesters beyond algebra, but as part of a foundational curriculum this could possibly condensed to two or three semesters. The math should also include a section on statistics and probability. The reason for suggesting this level of math preparation is that differential equations are the fundamental descriptors of the natural world. Using only algebra in science classes is like reading only English-language translations of the Bible and the classics. Perhaps algebra is adequate, but if so, the rigor would not match that being proposed for the foundational education in the humanities.
Finally, I think an education in science does help achieve many of the same educational goals that you have laid out in various places on this blog. It has an advantage in that right and wrong can often be more clearly distinguished and can help keep the idea of ultimate truth from getting lost in complex but sophistic arguments. Some level of engineering education might be helpful, in that engineering could be thought of as the human adaption of the sciences to a culture, perhaps analogous to the relationship between the study of languages and the study of literature written in those languages. These ideas perhaps can be continued at another point - time to get back to less abstract thoughts on engineering education - as in, I need finish my lecture for tomorrow (ironically, it is on technical writing)!
Jon-
You're welcome. I'm glad to know you're interested in considering the topic.
I'm not really sure what the curriculum should look like, I've never read anything by a Lutheran who has considered this (this is a statement of my ignorance not a criticism of Lutheran educators generally). The table of contents of Wilson's book suggests a fairly standard description of scientific materialism, and I don't see in this list an explicit discussion of curriculum.
I would think that at least 4 semesters of science covering chemistry, biology and physics would be necessary, as these are the foundational natural sciences. These need to be understood at a level that allows one to understand their role in our modern technological society, and more fundamentally, these are God's creations, so wouldn't an orthodox Lutheran want to appreciate God's creation? Is it really true that understanding the physics of a rainbow destroys appreciation of its beauty, as I was once told by an acquaintance (which stuck me as an argument for ignorance)? Rather, wouldn't (shouldn't?) this enhance our appreciation of the elegance of God's creation?
Mathematics should be taken through differential equations. Typically, this level of mathematics takes 4 semesters beyond algebra, but as part of a foundational curriculum this could possibly condensed to two or three semesters. The math should also include a section on statistics and probability. The reason for suggesting this level of math preparation is that differential equations are the fundamental descriptors of the natural world. Using only algebra in science classes is like reading only English-language translations of the Bible and the classics. Perhaps algebra is adequate, but if so, the rigor would not match that being proposed for the foundational education in the humanities.
Finally, I think an education in science does help achieve many of the same educational goals that you have laid out in various places on this blog. It has an advantage in that right and wrong can often be more clearly distinguished and can help keep the idea of ultimate truth from getting lost in complex but sophistic arguments. Some level of engineering education might be helpful, in that engineering could be thought of as the human adaption of the sciences to a culture, perhaps analogous to the relationship between the study of languages and the study of literature written in those languages. These ideas perhaps can be continued at another point - time to get back to less abstract thoughts on engineering education - as in, I need finish my lecture for tomorrow (ironically, it is on technical writing)!
If I may join in, friends, I would like to suggest that without a concetration on dialectic and rhetoric in the early formative years of a scientist's education, it will be very hard for him to connect the specialized arguments of his field to the polemical common places (loci) of which most people are at least minimally (even if accidentally) acquainted.
What I mean to say is that our bulwark against the splintering caused by specialization are the loci of dialectic and rhetoric. The skills gained by becoming familiar with these places have to do with remaining in a certain topic of persuasion or discussion without reducing our examples and arguments to minute detailing of specific syllogisms and evidence.
This last activity is of course what needs to happen among specialists. But this activity can never dominate - otherwise we are splintered.
The teacher here holds a pivotal role. He himself must be educated in the sciences more than he is today. He must be able to faciliate something which is hardly valued today among parents and much less practiced.
As the media of communication broaden our social retardation accelerates. Isn't this exactly what drives a young man to look at arguments about evolution or biology and adopt a fideist approach to it? So we must narrow the field of communication by focussing on the loci. What are they?
By the way, the key words I typed in are "deduc" - a horrible omen, Magister, if I ever saw one. Maybe I should not post this!
Ambergius
Dear Anonymous, (I would love to know who you are!). Thanks for your comments. It strikes me that good use could very well be made of "retired" profs (do old profs ever retire? or do they just go looking at blogs?) in designing a curriculum and, in fact, perhaps in implementing it as well. Thanks! Stay tuned.
Stevin, what jumped out at me in the selections from Wilson's book was the emphasis on the distinction between natural and social (or human) sciences. If I recall correctly this question hit a fevered pitch (especially in Germany) during the late 19th and early-mid 20th centuries, and became somewhat central to the phenomonologists' debate in the mid 20th century (think Hans Blumenberg and Gadamer, for example). As I understand it the debate boils down whether or not the human sciences can (or should) be approached as the natural sciences are. This debate may be helpful to bear in mind when considering the "form" of a liberal arts base to the sciences.
Going back even further, it seems to me that looking to the advent of "Modern Science" (whatever that might mean) would be helpful in sorting out what a 21st century Wittenbergian education in science would look like. I would argue that Bacon and Descartes (this of course could be debated) mark a significant turn which results in our modern conception of science. Descartes' use of Geometry may be of particular interest, when it is compared to Euclid's Geometry. We often start with a fundamentally Cartesian understanding of mathematics (something that is of great value, as the computer you are using to read this clearly demonstrates...let's see Euclid lead us to that). But what if the scientific education began with the ancients...not just patting them on the head and saying "aren't they cute," but rather really looking at where they are coming from and how they see their project. Euclid may not have taken his Geometry the same way that Descartes took his, but that's not because Euclid was more poorly equipped to do so, but because he was trying to go somewhere else. Where was he going and why? Did he reach a dead-end, or did we just stop looking? (Maybe even more fundamentally...why is Modern science so focused on progress as the telos, when the ancients seemed to have very different teloi?)
Peter,
Your suggestion sounds to me a lot like how the sciences are taught at St. John's College. I am not an expert in this school, but as I understand it, they study math and the sciences through the great books created by the mathematicians and scientists.
As a historian of ideas, this sounds great to me. The question that comes to mind is if this would then produce a strong science core as Steven is proposing. Another way of saying this is that it seems to me that if you go too slowly, you understand better why and how the individual approached his question and arrived at his answer, but you cannot cover as much ground.
As a whole I am all in favor of this approach or some similar one, however, not being a scientist I cannot answer if this would enable to student to get sufficiently up to date with the contemporary science and its developments.
A secondary aspect of this can be assisted by ongoing faculty education, where the different members continue to educate and bring up to speed their colleagues in other departments. Not that this will ever render one an expert in a different field, but it can help them to think and teach their students to think in a cross-disciplinary manner. I am reminded of how all of these different areas of knowledge were once considered part of philosophy and in fact for 1500 years Aristotle was considered expert in most, not that Aristotle was right about his scientific theories. But there was a better concept of the integration of knowledge.
This brings up a second question. In a Wittenberg model of education are we aiming at creating subject experts or is the aim to have good, proper generalists who can then attack any given vocation with further study?
In Christ,
John
John (and others), I think that's exactly the rub, don't you? Steve answered my query above about what was centrally necessary with far more "stuff" than I thought he might. My abiding question is probably yours: what is it that makes someone conversant with the science (?the scientific tradition?) in an intellectually responsible manner--so that, as you point out, that person could and would know the limits of his thinking and knowledge (humility) while understanding enough (reasonable confidence) to proceed on questions of science in a responsible way? Maybe put another way: what is it in science that is really important for every well-educated person to know and be able to do?
In four years not "everything" can be done; but whatever is done has to be significant, enduring, full of impact, coherent, intellectually challenging, etc. To take another example, you can't read ALL of Aristotle, only some: the question is which?
The Wittenberg answer, as best I can grasp it, is always to aim at "first things," at the principles and the basic (or core) texts (and/or knowledge), with the goal of making students intellectually responsible, and useful for church and society. Perhaps, then, if one builds back from that end goal one can determine which or how much (and delivered in what way) of Steve's proposed math/science core should be adopted--and then to ask whether there's a distinctly "Wittenbergian" approach to it all.
To Anonymous’ point from several days ago: I know there are examples out there of collaborations between liberal arts and science faculty, I’m just not directly aware of them and they certainly have not had a significant impact on education in either field in the large research universities of my experience. I saw in the 2010 LCMS Convention Workbook that Concordia-Irvine has introduced a core curriculum revision that pairs theology/biology, history/literature and mathematics/philosophy. I don’t know any more about it than that, but it seems in principle a step in the direction I had in mind.
To Ambergius, I agree entirely that a sound foundational education is important for scientists, that disciplinary gaps can’t really be patched just by adding a bridging course or even by pairing courses as described above (as useful as that might be). So I’m intrigued to consider how a Wittenberg approach can help establish such a foundation for specialization later. I’m glad to see that you agree that more education in science among teachers (at all levels, Imo) is necessary. I wonder though if we agree on what is core/foundational knowledge and what is specialization. That would be worth continuing to explore.
To Peter H, you are much better versed in the history of education than I am. I do think that there are fundamental differences between the natural and social sciences. It begins with the fact that the natural sciences (including mathematics) are basically a study of God’s creations, while the social sciences are largely a study of human creations, to crudely oversimplify. I think there is something to your more significant question about whether the tools used by humans to explore the natural sciences can be adapted to the social sciences or not. Consider our recent economic travails, which were in significant part created by ‘quants’ (math and science PhDs) applying formulas to predict human behavior (economics) that failed to consider human emotions (e.g. loss of confidence in markets over a weekend) or new ideas or situations that did not fit the formulas (the “Black Swan” phenomenon) – but which were not understood by the non-scientists who made the decisions about how to use those formulas. I think your question regarding what would be the Wittenberg approach to education in science and mathematics is of great significance and one that I have been hoping those who have come together at Ren Mus might be able to answer. I think the attempts to answer this would begin with considering how math and science were in fact handled at Wittenberg, and why was this either lost, or not developed as modern science expanded beyond the early Lutheran astronomers.
To Rev. Hellwege, a course in the history of science that I took as an undergraduate was one of the most influential of my education, in that it made me see that science as it is practiced is a human activity (even if the subject is God’s creation), and its development did depend upon personalities and cultures. That is what leads me to suspect that a Wittenberg education might make scientists better in their vocations, and not just make them better Lutherans. I continue to emphasize in my courses the personalities and history behind the equations and theories we are studying. However, understanding the history of science is not same as understanding science. While the manner in which scientific understanding came to be had a historical context, once developed, it becomes culturally independent (one difference between natural and social sciences).
I do suspect that the dethroning of Aristotle and the expansion of scientific knowledge far beyond what any one individual can hope to master is at the root of the divide that exists today between the liberal arts and the sciences. Even in my 25 years as a faculty member, I have seen most research papers go from being collaborations between a single graduate student and a single professor to becoming team projects among multiple faculty and students. It is a challenge even within the sciences and engineering to decide what is essential for all team members to understand, and what things can be left up to the expertise of a particular team member. It will take some serious thinking to figure out how to bridge the gap described in the EO Wilson quotes that have kicked off this discussion.
In summary, my latter comments in particular are simply less concise and shallower ways of stating what Jon has identified as the key items for this discussion. I’m glad to have him leading this discussion!
Whether the science and math topics and the depth I’ve identified are in fact essential for all students in a Wittenberg higher ed program can certainly be debated. I do think all students need more depth in these areas than is currently common in BA programs in the liberal arts. What I listed earlier would be the minimum essential for someone who wanted to acquire the foundational patterns of thinking brought up by Ambergius in a Wittenberg BA program, yet still be able to move on to research university to obtain a BS or possibly an MS in science or engineering within 2 years. If such a route were not possible, few students with such post-graduation vocational interests would enroll, and I think the modern Wittenberg University would have a much narrower faculty and student body than you’d want to produce students educated the way you've envisioned.
This whole discussion reminds me of CFW Walther's insistence that pastors have oversight of education. How many of our LCMS pastors have undergraduate science degrees? Both of mine do. I am not familiar enough with the Concordia University system to know what role pastors play in oversight of the curriculum there.
Cornelia,
The Boards of Regents of the Concordias are required to have both ordained and lay members. I have no idea what influence the ordained members actually have on the curriculum.
Steve
Post a Comment