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.