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.

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.

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 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’….