Chad was wondering what to blog about, and then tapped into the mother lode, judging by the number of responses. The Innumeracy of Intellectuals
I’m a professor at a liberal arts college, putting me solidly in the “Intellectual” class, and there’s a background assumption that anyone with as much education as I have will know something about history and philosophy and literature and art and classical music. I read enough to have literature covered, even if my knowledge is a little patchy, and I took enough classes in college to have a rough grasp of history and philosophy, but art and music are hopeless.
I admit it: I share similar characteristics with Chad. Even though I’m not awash in liberal-arts faculty, I think it’s support-group time.
Hi, I’m Tom, and I’m not a ‘real’ intellectual.
Hi, Tom.
I didn’t take art history or music appreciation in college. I like a few classical pieces of music, but my favorites came from watching Bugs Bunny — not exactly the intellectual pedigree. I tried defending my lack of classical music in my collection in college by pointing out that I liked Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture — the response was “Who doesn’t?”
I did my humanities and social sciences without much complaint but didn’t take any literature courses after completing the English composition requirement. I read more than the canonical six books from The Big Read, but not overwhelmingly more. If I were on Cheers, I’d be laughing at Diane, not with her, when she would say something like “It’s very Joycian.” Or Jungian, or Kantian. I only know the names of some philosophers because of the Monty Python song, not because I can associate a name with a school of thought. Any ability I might have had to do that I lost through atrophy. (Except Freud, even though I never studied psychology. Basic Freud seems to be pretty easy — it’s all about the penis) But I have an appreciation that these topics exist, and I can learn about them. If I find I have a real need for this knowledge, I can acquire it.
Math and science are different. Going out and acquiring this knowledge, without a solid foundation, isn’t easy.
It bugs me still that students could take a “physics for poets” class and get course credit — but these courses did not count toward a major — and yet no such arrangement existed within the humanities and social sciences classes: when I took introduction to sociology, there were sociology majors in the class. The big difference? A math prerequisite. Two, actually, since “physics for poets” generally doesn’t require algebra, and there is an algebra-based physics sequence that physics majors don’t take, either.
I was playing a game with some kids, where we had to do addition, and I knew one of them was old enough to have learned addition, but the child was using fingers to count, rather than doing it in his/her head (the sum was less than 30). I frowned or made some comment, and one parent told me “so-and-so isn’t really wired for math.” I was amazed — that’s an acceptable response? If this were English, would anyone accept “not wired for it” as a response?
So yes, I agree with
I’m not exaggerating when I say that I think the lack of respect for math and science is one of the largest unacknowledged problems in today’s society. And it starts in the academy– somehow, we have moved to a place where people can consider themselves educated while remaining ignorant of remarkably basic facts of math and science. If I admit an ignorance of art or music, I get sideways looks, but if I argue for taking a stronger line on math and science requirements, I’m being unreasonable. The arts are essential, but Math Is Hard, and I just need to accept that not everybody can handle it.
There is a minimum competence level that we need to insist that people have. There are entirely too many people who don’t know these basic things and some are even proud of that fact. And it does do damage — not understanding their mortgage, as Chad points out, helped with some of today’s problems. But there are other effects as well — people who don’t have an appreciation of science are prone to the quantum snake-oil salesman, too. If they think that free energy can be had with some new device credulously reported in the news, they aren’t likely to think any energy shortage problem is real. If they can’t evaluate the fallacy-laden arguments supporting antiscience, denialist arguments, we get inundated with “controversies” concerning any number of medical issues (antivaccination or other things Orac might blog about), global warming and evolution, that are played out on the op-ed page, where the science is, at best, an afterthought.
I was with you until you started knocking the physics for poets classes as not being rigorous enough. 🙂 Look, I agree that math and science should be a part of our cultural literacy heritage — and I’m a humanities convert to that frame of mind. It’s simply not acceptable that I was allowed to get away with avoiding math and science for much of my liberal arts higher education. I’ve since made amends. Getting others to do likewise? A much more difficult challenge.
I think we need to be realistic about what to expect from people who really just want the Cliff’s Notes version of math and science, a basic understanding of the conceptual underpinnings and a bit of the rigor, without a full-fledged calculus-based physics course. It’s not like they’re going to BE practicing scientists, after all, and they also need to become proficient in their own specialty. Besides, standard physics courses are usually so poorly taught that they have the opposite effect of turning folks off — indeed, the root of the aversion for most science and math phobes lies in the classes they took in high school. Even the physics for poets courses could be better: the Mythbusters could teach us a lot on that score. 🙂
One other thing irks me a little: you yourself admit to writing off most of the humanities. Which means you are ALSO imbalanced in terms of “cultural literacy.” Which is fine — I don’t expect the average physicist to be able or interested in in-depth analysis of art or literature on an expert level, any more than they expect me to make a useful contribution to string theory. But the impression is that you think you’re “better” because your expertise is math and science — i.e., that you can easily become an “expert” in any of these other fields if you wanted to, because, after all, you’re smart enough to know SCIENCE. Um, bluster much? 🙂 You blithely dismiss the entire field of philosophy, for starters, and reduce Freud to being “all about the penis.” There’s a lot more to it than that, to one who understands and appreciates the history — which you clearly don’t — just as there is a lot more to the intricacies of thermodynamics than merely parroting, “energy is conserved and entropy always increases in a closed system.”
You’re basically making the same mistake of compartmentalizing your subjects. It’s all part of the same cultural fabric, and knowing a bit about other aspects of human culture in an historical context enriches our knowledge in our area(s) of expertise as well. (Frankly, I’m really surprised at how little some physicists know their OWN history.)
I don’t think most scientists (and especially physicists) INTEND to give this impression, any more than humanities sorts really think about the implications of “oh, I’m just not interested in math.” (Some intend it, but they’re jerks. On both sides.) Yet this is the impression one gives, and again, it tends to make regular folks want nothing to do with your subject area. How can you ask them to respect your subjects if you don’t respect theirs? I see similar attitudes about scientists towards writing: that really, it’s something “anybody” with half a brain and a bit of dabbling can do easily — when in fact, good writing is incredibly difficult and requires years of practice to hone the craft to professional levels… much like science, in fact.
None of this excuses the folks who pay no attention to math and science and think this is something to brag about, mind you. I’m just sayin’….
Aye, there’s the rub. Do I, in my sorry state as a scientist know more about “cultural” things than the “intellectuals” Chad was discussing know about math and science? I think the problem is that there are too many who aren’t even getting the Cliff’s notes version. Even having a grasp of “energy is conserved and entropy always increases in a closed system” is missing when you have overunity devices continually reported by a credulous media and an uncritical readership.
Writing well is a talent that you possess and have developed, and of which I am endowed to a much lesser degree. Yet I can still communicate somewhat effectively with writing. Likewise, if I am not sufficiently well-read I am least literate; these represent two thresholds below which one would not, presumably, be able to earn a college/university degree. Where is that level for science and math?
I actually agree with most of what you said, though I see Jennifer’s point. I served on a committee this spring that considered our college’s quantitative literacy requirements, and the non-math savvy faculty routinely made snide comments about how little they knew. Mind you, part of the impetus for this committee was to consider some comments made by the re-accreditation board about the inadequacy of our current requirements.
Personally, I am a big believer in a well-rounded liberal arts education. So, in addition to making everyone take basic math, I think everyone also ought to take basic philosophy, english, etc. (which they currently do). I have a minor in philosophy and I know a number of physicists with minors or even dual degrees in the humanities and social sciences. My theory about this is that physicists have a tendency to be fascinated with everything. Certainly this is not true of all physicists, but I would say it is true more often than not.
In any case, I tend to agree with Tom on this one. It’s just lunacy – particularly in this age of technology – to let this continue unabated.
Hey! Don’t be ‘dis’n my finger counting. I’ll admit to counting/adding on my fingers. It’s not necessarily about being “wired for math” — I mean I did manage to double major in Physics and Astronomy at Berkeley, and complete a PhD in Physics (HEP). Count/Addition != “math”. Dyslexics have coping mechanisms.
On one of the other blogs someone suggested that a “Literature for the Literal” would be on par with “Physics for Poets” and “Rocks for Jocks”. That’s an niche that could get filled. It’s probably a matter of being on the Autism spectrum, but I never see the “deep meaning” in books. Thundering horses == sex in D. H. Lawrence — didn’t get it even after the Prof gushed on and on. Boy falls from a tree in “A Separate Peace” == Adam/Eve kicked out of Eden — nope, didn’t notice. Moby Dick about something other than whalehunting … well, if you say so.
I see the Moby Dick thing, but I am not sure I get the others. Honestly I always thought those guys read a little too much into literature at times. I write short stories that border on the avant garde at times, but they’re not always ultra-deep metaphors. Sometimes it’s just what pops into my head.