In his Reference Frame commentary, Leo Kadanoff calls
attention to published data showing that US high-school students have mediocre achievement test
scores in science and related subjects in comparison with other nations (PHYSICS TODAY, September
2006, page 8). To help alleviate the problem, he advocates measures to improve the effectiveness
of teacher training.
However, there is a compelling
reason to question one aspect of Kadanoff's analysis of causes. The factors he cites are presented
as persistent aspects of culture—characteristics of our way of life that he sees as dating
back for generations. If those factors had been operative for so long, how could we ever have achieved
a position of leadership in science? Since the concern at hand is potential or ongoing loss of leadership,
the mere presence of these or other persistent causes cannot be the primary explanation. Either
additional impediments to learning have emerged or cultural change has intensified the established
impediments. I suggest that we examine the accelerating, ongoing cultural change in the US over
the past several decades and that we focus on the core change that impacts science most severely:
The nation has shifted in philosophy from the search for truth to the postmodern denial that objective
truth exists.1
Science faculty may feel
secure against the threat of postmodernism because they have the authority to instruct concerning
the facts of nature—facts that exist independent of opinions and beliefs. Unfortunately,
many students arrive in science classrooms and laboratories already committed to the postmodern
conception of truth as culturally determined, multiple valued, and continuously subject to undisciplined
debate and modification. They are consequently unprepared mentally to accept instruction that
conflicts with the postmodern viewpoint. As long as postmodernism continues its onward march,
this problem can only grow worse.
Kadanoff says the conflict
that science has with religion over evolution is a source of both disinterest and hostility toward
science. A more complete analysis would address all the major factors that influence the standing
of science in society; one factor, I think, is science's growing complacency about its own reputation
for objectivity. Kadanoff characterized that reputation as follows: "[Scientific] observations
can provide the hard facts upon which others may build the reliable instruments of our polity, or
our economy, or our view of the world." Complacency about science's reputation takes two forms:
accepting ideological influences that conflict with objectivity and drawing on the reputation
of science to advance policy preferences.
One example of ideological
influence is addressed in the work of Karl Reinhard of the University of Nebraska. He describes
the adverse impact that the American counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s had on the archaeological
and anthropological study of pre-Columbian civilization in North America2—an
impact that included publication of invalid conclusions that were accepted uncritically because
they supported the sociopolitical views of the scholars and their students. Conflicting results
were excluded from consideration, thereby delaying for many years the recognition and correction
of bias.
Science institutions
and leaders also harm science's reputation for objectivity by endorsing specific policy preferences
and participating in institutional alliances intended to advance the endorsed preferences.
To sustain the claim of objectivity, science should avoid institutional policy endorsement,
emphasize those "hard facts," maintain a clear distinction between facts and policy recommendations,
acknowledge other interests and sources of knowledge as legitimate, and treat other parties engaged
in policy discussion with respect rather than condescension. Unwillingness to accept these limitations
is evident in debate concerning highly contested policy areas, such as nuclear proliferation,
ballistic missile defense, and global warming. Science pays the consequent price of its activism
in the form of diminished respect.
References
1. A. Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, Simon & Shuster, New York (1987).
Although we agree
with the larger point Leo Kadanoff makes—that in this country educational and intellectual
accomplishments are insufficiently valued compared with other types of success—we believe
that his criticism of The Wizard of Oz as an example of an anti-education attitude in American
culture is unfounded.
Kadanoff complains that
in the movie, "one character morphs from nasty schoolteacher into wicked witch. Another is given
a diploma to make up for his lack of brain." However, the occupation of Miss Gulch, the character
who morphs into the Wicked Witch, is not even mentioned in the film. The only clue to her background
comes from Auntie Em, who tells her, "Almira Gulch, just because you own half the county doesn't
mean you have the power to run the rest of us!" It sounds like wealthy landowners are the ones being
cast in a bad light, not schoolteachers.
Regarding the Wizard's
gift of a diploma to the Scarecrow, who asked him for a brain, we note that the Wizard also gave a medal
to the Lion, who asked him for courage, and a heart-shaped watch to the Tin Man, who asked him for a
heart. Are we therefore to infer that the film devalues courage and love as well as intelligence? Certainly not. On the contrary, all the quests of Dorothy's
companions are portrayed as noble and worthwhile.
When presenting gifts
to Dorothy's companions, the Wizard tells each recipient that he is not really lacking what he seeks.
That is certainly true of the Scarecrow, who bemoans his lack of a brain and yet comes up with most
of the good ideas for Dorothy's group. The purpose of the Wizard's gifts is to provide some recognition
of each one's abilities in order to build self-confidence. The message conveyed is that you don't
need the help of a wizard with magical powers to be successful; you can do that on your own if you simply
have some faith in yourself and make good use of whatever abilities you have. That's one of the cherished
ideals of American culture—and hardly an anti-educational one.
Leo Kadanoff's column
on physics education follows several recent PHYSICS TODAY articles on improving education in
physics. The programs and proposals seem meritorious, and I've appreciated being able to contribute
a small part to helping start the new Physical Review journal on physics education research.
But it seems to me there's a more fundamental problem than just the improvement of the way we teach:
How do we make physics a subject that more people want to learn about?
The discoveries and accomplishments
of physics in the early 20th century were awe inspiring, and their promise surely contributed to
the growth of our field. So did the Manhattan Project, the Apollo space program, and similar major
engineering efforts. My pursuit of physics largely stemmed from an early exposure to the Moon landings
and the inspiration they provided to explore new things. But those things are now past, part of the
legacy of our science. Somehow the promise and inspiration has been lost in physics, and we have
to compete with the information and biological sciences that now seem much more open to exploration
and wonder.
Kadanoff's statement
on "meaning and value," while accurate, illustrates the current situation: "Evidence-based
arguments aimed at finding provisional truths" isn't exactly the siren call that will bring millions
of eager and enthusiastic students. The argument that students should learn physics because it's
good for them seems to me to parallel the old argument to keep teaching classical Latin—it
may have a point, but it's doomed. In a world that has computers as stores of knowledge, ready calculators
of even the most complex formulas, and prominent physicists who claim that robots are better space
explorers than humans, the future for human exploration in the physical sciences seems strikingly
limited. Can we do better to convey the open vistas that still do exist in the physical sciences?
Or must we await the next set of revolutions comparable to those of the 20th century before broad
public enthusiasm for our science can be rekindled?
Featured Jobs
