Cultural Or Scientific Literacy?

About two hundred years ago the United States was a poorly developed (both culturally and economically), newly independent nation with a population about ten times smaller than that of either England or France. Over the years, our country seemed to have evolved as a counterweight to the dominant European culture, trying to reject the ways of the Old World, thus creating its own identity. Two centuries later, objective statistical indicators show the U.S. as the undisputed world leader in scientific innovation and consequently in economic prosperity. Upon visiting the New World, Oscar Wilde wrote about "the crude commercialism of America, its materializing spirit, and its indifference to the poetical side of things." Perhaps it is exactly the neglect of the "poetical side of things" and the decline of the education in the arts and humanities in this country that catapulted the American society to its supremacy in the areas of science education, technology, and material wealth.

The incredible progress in the field of the natural sciences and engineering shaped much of the twentieth century. At the same time, the humanities and social sciences have lagged behind in their efforts to explain the humanistic outlook and the historico-philosophical impact of the advances in the natural sciences. These advances have been led mostly by researchers in this country, while the American mass culture is often perceived as provincial and less sophisticated than the more cosmopolitan cultural fabric of European nations. Interestingly, the educational establishment, as well as the American mass media, is constantly worried about the scientific literacy level among our students, as they appear less prepared in the sciences and math than their overseas counterparts.(1) At the same time, the level of cultural literacy (knowledge and appreciation of the arts, humanities, and social sciences) receives very little attention. Furthermore, many experts either completely condemn or unquestionably glorify the American educational system without differentiation between the two quite opposing fields of human knowledge--the "two cultures" as described by C.P. Snow in the 1950s--the sciences and the humanities.

The above-listed observations raise several issues that may be best addressed from an international, transatlantic perspective: What are the main goals of scientific and cultural education? What exactly makes the field of the natural sciences and engineering different from the humanities and the social sciences? What are the real, meaningful differences between the American and European approaches to achieving these goals? What are the educational and societal outcomes of the two quite different educational systems? Why does the American-style, laissez-faire approach to education appear to be more appropriate for the field of the natural sciences than for the humanities and social sciences? I have performed an integrated analysis of the answers to these questions using readily available statistical data. My argument will be that, the postindustrial American society and its educational establishment need to focus on efforts aimed at increasing the levels of cultural (not scientific) literacy for all.

Sciences Differ from the Humanities and Social Sciences

The world of the natural sciences deals with objects that do not possess self-awareness and are independently external to us. Major breakthroughs in mathematics and the natural sciences, where the number of variables is comparatively small, tend to be associated with younger researchers whose knowledge of the subject matter is quite limited--narrow and deep, rather than wide and comprehensive.(2) More knowledge and accumulation of schemata may actually impede innovative thinking in the natural sciences.

Social and cultural knowledge is structured in a less hierarchical manner and includes an unimaginably higher number of variables that must be managed. Therefore, due to their more complex nature, the humanities and social sciences require a great deal more time for accumulation of a larger body of information, followed by multivariate analysis of many factors and subjective perspectives. It seems that "less is more" in the study of natural matter, while "more is more" in the study of social and cultural issues. Deep and narrow specialization of a young mind generates breakthroughs in the natural sciences, while only broad and interdisciplinary knowledge attained comparatively later in life is able to generate new ideas in the humanities and social sciences.

Researchers and science educators have shown that humans are not naturally inclined to think scientifically.(3) The formal, logical thinking needed for math and science represents an abnormal mode of thinking, which may not be beneficial to an individual from a historical and evolutionary perspective. The use of intuition appears to be a faster and more natural way of solving everyday problems. The notion that the scientific way of looking at things doesn't come naturally to humans is further supported by three sets of data: First, psychologists have found that the learning patterns for the vast majority of the general population are non-abstract, more concrete, and sensing in their nature.(4) Second, many educators, including a prominent figure like M. H. Shamos, who is a former president of the National Science Teachers Association, have indicated that efforts to instill habits of scientific reasoning in students who are not scientifically inclined have been largely fruitless. This is attributed to the fact that "so much of modern science defies common sense."(5)