November 11, 1999, 813 words
Anyone who does not have a basic knowledge of science is not an educated person.
This assertion runs counter to the traditional view of what makes someone educated or cultured. Literature, for example, enjoys more intellectual status than any other academic field, so much so that Harold Bloom, author of The Western Canon, can make the following claim: "Cognition cannot proceed without memory, and the Canon is the true art of memory, the authentic foundation for cultural thinking. Without the Canon, we cease to think."
This astonishing opinion runs counter to every respectable tenet of ethnography and psychology yet, far from being laughed out of the Academy, Bloom is hailed as one of America's foremost literary critics.
This is so largely because literature has a far longer intellectual tradition than science. Admittedly, as far as individuals go, a physicist is generally considered more intellectual than a literature professor. But, if death was the topic of discussion at a cocktail party, the person who quotes John Donne - "Death, be not proud, though some have called thee/Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so" - impresses more than the person who quotes Rudolf Clausius - "The passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body cannot take place without compensation" (the Second Law of thermodynamics, which defines entropy).
While it is true that the first quote is more comforting than the second, it is also true that scientific illiteracy is considered excusable even in the best circles, whereas literary ignorance usually attracts the raised eyebrow and curled lip. Psycholinguist Steven Pinker writes, "In a gathering of today's elite, it is perfectly acceptable to laugh that you barely passed Physics for Poets and Rocks for Jocks and have remained ignorant of science ever since, despite the obvious importance of scientific literacy to informed choices about personal health and public policy." (It should be noted that Pinker works at MIT, arguably the most progressive institute of higher learning in the world. In Trinidad, obviously, it is perfectly acceptable to confess ignorance of both science and literature - among our elites, only ignorance of cricket scores or how to bribe politicians would elicit contempt.)
In my view, it is even more important for a society's elites to have a grasp of scientific principles than of scientific knowledge. (I single out elites because, although it is desirable for the average person to be properly educated, in practice a technical education is usually adequate.) The person without scientific knowledge may be half-educated, but the person without a scientific attitude is entirely ignorant. That is because the two guiding principles of science - logic and empiricism - are also fundamental tenets of modern civilization. With one exception, no developed nation in the world has a citizenry which does not, for the most part, reject superstition. The exception is the United States, where over 90 percent of the populace believe in ghosts, spirits and God. (Interesting note: of this year's four Nobel prize-winning scientists, none were born in America but three work or have worked there.)
As a group, scientists are more trustworthy professionally than most other academics. The main reason for this is succinctly given by noted science-writer Lewis Thomas (himself a professional scientist): "It is an impossibility for a scientist to fake his results and get away with it," writes Thomas. "If he reports something of genuine significance, he knows for a certainty that other workers will repeat his experiments, or try to, and if he has cooked his data the word will soon be out, to the ruin of his career."
None of this cuts any ice with the majority of human beings, though. When it comes to the pursuit of knowledge, most people prefer to believe those who offer certainties and comfort. Reputable scientists never offer the former, and provide the latter only by coincidence. That is why the average person prefers to believe fundamentalist priests or pop psychologists or bad poets.
Thus, we find around us many otherwise rational people who insist the world is only 6,000 years old, that holy men can materialize objects out of thin air, and that a book compiled 1400 years ago describes the Big Bang. Despite these absurd beliefs, these persons usually manage to lead quite normal, even productive, lives.
However, problems start to arise when the average person, far from being indifferent to science, is vehemently anti-scientific. And these problems worsen when a society's intellectual elite embrace such attitudes and beliefs. In Trinidad, a Natural Sciences professor tells me that evolution does not necessarily contradict a Creator. A prominent doctor hears Sai Baba before making medical decisions. An AIDS researcher opposes the use of condoms because contraception is sinful. Is it any surprise, then, to find the nation's educators rejecting all the scientific evidence showing that asbestos in schools poses no threat?
Copyright ©1999 Kevin Baldeosingh