G. William Lawless and Joseph R. Pici University of Dayton Dayton, Ohio 45469
I I
Art versus Science Some history and a solution
The divergence between the arts and the sciences is usually attributed to C. P. Snow (I). His "two culture"Rede lecture in 1959 introduced the ohrase into our vocabularv. Snow'; remarks, hmvcver, were really only a summary of rurrrnl itandin%.Earlier authors (2-51had alsoaddressed the suhwr~ with the hirth and mowh of the Industrial Hevolution - ,~~~ " providing a major stimulant to their thoughts. If nothing else, our cultural divereence is at least historical. Even man's ear" liest universities divided their curricula into "centers" of specialization. By the medieval period, art, law, medicine, and theology were recognized majors ( 6 ) . The 115-year period dating frnm the revolutionary puhlications of Copernicus to the founding of the Royal Society in I6W marks borh a major scientific discovery period and the formal intn,dliction of science into the curricula uf higher learning. Table I lists several major developmentsof the period, including America's first entry into higher educationthe founding of Harvard College in 1636 as a rchool for ministers (7). By the early 17th century, forerunners of today's universities offered Art (collectively Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric), and Science (Arithmetic. Geometrv. Music. Astronomv) .. (8). . . Evidence of the incursion of the scientific caching aid into higher education is given by the existence of physical cabinets dating from the mid-18th century (9).The charter of Yale University, in 1701, directed that its students "be so educated that they might he fitted for public employment both in church and civil state" (10). . . This seems to be the first recorded instance of a university actually preparing a student for subsequent gainful emolovment. i n i766 Harvard first made professors subject specialists, i.e. they no longer taught a "class," and by 1850 scientific schools had been established a t Harvard, Yale, and Dartmouth. The founding of MIT in 1861 ("which young men rnuld learn exactly and thoroughly the fundamental principles of posi~i\xscience with their lead~ngapplications to the indusrrial arts"). and Cornell in 1867 (to Dromote education of a "practically keful" nature) certifiedihe acceptance of the applications of science, over and above theoretical developments, as desirable studies in higher learning. For the record it should be noted that the first American engineering school, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, was founded in 1824. and the uredecessor of our Technical Institutes, now divi&ns or schools for Engineering Technology, the. Ohiu Mechanics Institute. was established in Cincinnati in 1828. Graduate study and the localization of research on the university campus rapidly came into their own and, after circa 1850, the guiding principle of higher education hecame that of utility rather than discipline as formerly (11). Carrying into this century (March 21,1911) a t dedication ceremonies for new facilities a t Throop Polytechnic Institute (later The California Institute of Technology) Theodore Roosevelt declared, "I want to see institutions like Throop turn out perhaps ninety-nine of every hundred students as men who are to do given pieces of industrial work better than anyone else can do them; . . . and the one-hundredth man I want to see with cultuial scientific training." Mr. Roosevelt's ratio of 99 to 1is perhaps extreme but his point was clear: T o perform in industry requires a discipline ~~
~~
~
~
~
~
~
312 1 Journal of Chemical Education
Table
1. Maior Developments of the Period 1548-1662
1548
Publications o f Copemicur (after his death in 15431, followed b y work of Brahe. Kepler, and Galileo. I t has been stated that Gaiiieo'r foresight in injecting mathematicr into science "led t o ail the developments of modern science and technology" (13). 1580 First w e of letters for unknown9 in mathematics. 1586 Formation of the decimal ryrtem. 1599 William Gilbert's Treatise, "On the Magnet. Magnetic Bodies and that Great Magnet, the Earth." Pre.1608 Invention o f the telercooe and use of b y Gaiileo In 1609. 1608 Invent on of tne m c r u r c o o e ano rlbreqLent a w e oomenr b y Anlonle van L e e l w e n n o e r (1632-1723) 1014 Dcve oDmen1 ot logarltnmr b y i r m n h a 0 er. e " X u tor m d l l 011. 162c)-103? l n ~ e n l m n0' t n e r de r ~ l c a n o~ l of cation. 1628 William Harvey. dircovery o f the circulation o f blood. 1636 Founding of Haward Coiiege. 1637 Beginnings of analytical geometry b y Dercarter. 1642 Parcal'r first adding machine. 1643 Invention o f the Birometer. Torricelli. A p p r o x . I650 Fermat (1601-16651. cofounder with Pascal o f the theory o f ProbabilitY, considerable early work leading t o the development o f calculus. A p p r o x . 1660 Eariy developments I n thermometry b y Boyle (16271 ....G,.4 1 , Approx.
1665 Eariy theoretical treatment (1629-1695). 1642-1 727 Life of Newton.
of light b y Huygenr
1 6 6 2 Founding of the Royal Society, weekly meetings begun in 1645. society founded In 1660, charter granted b y Charier 1 1 in
1662.
Other "namer" of the period whore works have greatly contributed to the develoPment in art and science include: GerharduS - . Mercator ~ - 11517-15941 ~ - - - ~ Miguel d e Cervanter (1547-1616j Ei Greco (Kyriakor Theotokopoulor] ("1548-1614) William Shakerpeare (1564-1616) John Milton (1608-16741 Baron Gottfried Wiiheim von Leibniz (1646-17161
foreign to that of a philosophy major and ne'er the twain disciplines shall meet (except perhaps once every hundred times or so). Historical developments since Mr. Roosevelt's period have intensified the role of the ~ h y s i c aresearcher l as well as the applirator of his discoveries: ~ h e s factors e have a h heen most intluential in the forming of the relevant technical curricula on the camnuses At the s a k e time the Colleges of Art have developed their own specialized curricula and, in the words of Douglas Bush, Gurney Professor of Literature, Harvard University, "The Modern Language Association meets in a multitude of groups, and the expert in one is an alien in forty others" (12). In an attemnt to studv the artlscience divereence nhenomenon on the campus, and perhaps in some small way to mitieate it. the followine oroiect . was recentlv undertaken a t the University of Dayton. During the fall term of 197675, the Departments of English and Chemical Technology (Engineering Technology Division of the School of Engineering) jointly offered a team-taught, three-credit hour lecture course entitled "The Literature of Technology."l The format of the course was to cover P5 recent best sellers on the literary scale that had a technical orientation. Several selections presented themselves for consideration (see Table 2) and those finally selected for study included: "Silent Spring" (Rachel Carson), "The Closing
-
--
--
'The nuthcm wish to gratefully a c k n o w l e d g ~the aupporr ~f the llnivrrairy of naytun Fund for E d u r n t w n n l Drwlopmcnt.
Circle" (Barry Commoner), "Unsafe At Any Speed" (Ralph Nader), "Terminal Man" (Michael Crichton), and "Of A Fire On The Moon" (Norman Mailer). The course has since been offered a second time utilizing some of the other selections. The course was open to all students who had completed a t least six hours of English, and the final enrollment of 24 students represented 11 departments from throughout the University. The course ohiective was to utilize the continuitv and relative formality of the classroom, and the common denominator of a "ewdbook!' to unite the divereent academic maiors - - ~~ ~ into first a&mtanebus, then a though$ul dialogue. Communication is usually the first hurdle to breach along the scientific-humanity gap. The years of technical training prepare a mind almost exclusively for a particular specialty. But this "accomplishment" is hardly limited to scientific circles. Few. other than the s~ecialist,can understand the musician's bass clef, or the editor's "stet," or the double entry "T-accounts" of the professional accountant. Furthermore, must communication necessarily imply specialized in-depth comprehension and even a full-scale manner of thought? As educators in separate fields, the professors found the crosssection of students to be equally responsive to the wide range of topics discussed. ~ndeed,the mature and frank questions from either "side" demanded a like answer. But communication is still an important factor. You cannot, for example, be discussing light, and in a moment of immodesty, throw out the term polarized. Likewise, such "humanistic" terms as genre, novella, motif, escapei m p , must he placed and di&ssed with care. The writings of a Michael Crichton and a Norman Mailer are especially illustrative for this type of course as hoth men pursued scientific curricula in college. As the course nroeressed and each work was covered from hoth technical a i d 'iiterary standpoints, the students were more and more able to aooreciate the "other's" point of view. Discussions of plut develbpment and writing styles hlended with terhnical lectures on atomic structure, light, relativity, the computer, and all, of necessity, in teamssuitable f o r ~ a senior majoring in history, technology, or mechanical engineering. Traditionally the engineeringlscience major has a difficult time rationalizing the work-aday future of his colleagues in the arts. As a special project, the class formulated aset of activities (listed in Table 3) as occupational goals for the humanist in his role, akin to that of the scientist, of offering solutions to the problems of contemporary society. Considerations of the related question, to what degree, if a t all, should the scientist be a humanist, and is the humanist in any way a scientist, enabled the class to focus upon another of the objectives of the course: The fields of science and humanities are not exclusive, separated disciplines, hut are quite compatible and in many instances inseparable. If anything, one is struck, not by differences in the humanistic-scientific cultures, but rather by their similarities. And strongly struck. Consider that the scholarly historian and ~~
.~ ~
~
~~
Table 2.
Some Literary Works Having a Technical Orientation
" T h e B e r m u d a T r i a n g l e . " C h a r i e r F. B e r l i t z " E i n s t e i n : T h e l i f e a n d t i m e r . " R o n a l d W. C l a r k "2001: A S p a c e OdYrsey:' A r t h u r C. C l a r k e "1984;' G e o r g e O r w e l l " T h e R e p o r t O n U n i d e n t i f i e d R y i n g Objects." E d w a r d J. R u p p e l t " T h e D o u b l e H e l i x . " J a m e s 0.W a t s o n "Carrying T h e Fire,"Michael C o i l i n r ' . P r e m e d i t a t e d Man: B i o e t h i c r a n d t h e C o n t r o l o f F u t u r e H u m a n Life:'Wiiliam H. R u r t a k " T h e D e v i l ' s Triangle,'' R i c h a r d W l n e r
~
Several w o r k s b y H. G. W e i l r a n d J u l e s Verne m i g h t a i r 0 b e con ridered
ar
Porribllitier.
Table 3. Goals for the Humanist 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Disseminating information t o t h e public. ~ e c o g n i r i n gt h e p r o b l e m 9 f a c i n g s o c i e t y a n d h u m a n i t y a t large. O f f e r i n g g u i d a n c e i n t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f e t h i c a l Questions. P o i n t i n g o u t viable options. ~ a k i n tgh e r e a d e r aware o f t h e p o l i t i c a l . P h i i o r o p h i c , r e l i g i o u r . e t h i c a l , m o r a l , s c i e n t i f i c , a n d a r t i r t i c D r o b l e m r (or q u e s t i o n s ) . 6. C r e a t i n g a v e h i c l e (baok-erray-poem-statUe--murical compos i t i o n ) for t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e g o o d , t h e b e a u t i f u l , a n d t h e t r u e .
the research physicist must both deal with the isolation and identification of facts; both occupations require meticulous caution and exactness, tough-mindedness and critical thinkine. imaeinative reaction, and the offer of a life of interest and ful?illment. The concept of feedback to the scientific ex~erimenteris known as rewrite to the research-oriented scholar, while the theory of science is replaced by an "inherent subtlety" in the creative arts. Both types must communicate with society and the interpretation of a unified field theory may he no less demanding than the full appreciation of a Guernica. Was Einstein speaking of Art or Science when he wrote "something deeply hidden had to he behind things"? Literature Cited ( I ) Snow. Sir Charlpa Percy;'TheTwoCultursand theScientific Revolution." Camhridm U n i v . P r a . New ~ " r k .1959. 121 Shelley, Percy Byrrhe. "A Defen~eof P,wtry: fmm Norton'* "Anthulsgy
