GENERAL EDUCATION AND GENERAL CHEMISTRY1 LESLIE S. FORSTER Bates College, Lewiston, Maine
forward. The discussion of this process would form one part of the third goal, i. e., an introduction to the philosophy of science. I n addition, the limitations of scientific inquiry should he emphasized and the tentative nature of scientific theories asserted. In a free society, the expenditure of large sums of money for research must have public acceptance; consequently, an understanding of the role of research, basic and applied, and its relation to technology is an important aspect of general education. And finally, to dispel the notion that the scientist. is cold and unemotional in his work and that. science is a dull, albeit necessary pursuit, some understanding of the emotional and aesthetic aspects of science should be inculcated. That science is an intellectual adventure every bit as exciting as philosophy, literature, or art should not escape the attention of the college student. To achieve these goals, nonscience majors are usually required t,o take a special course "about science." With an already crowded curriculum it is generally impracticable for the science major to do likewise. It might. well be argued that the science student mill ultimately, by virtue of his training, obtain this general education and in a more thorough manner than his nonscientific brethren who take the general education course. If one has in mind the relatively few individuals who become research scientists, this view is probably correct. But what of the large bulk of those in the general chemist,ry course, those future doctors, dentists, engineers, foresters, etc.? This group must be exposed to the general aspects of srience in the "specialized" science courses or not a t all. Fortunately, the general chemistry course is well suited to this task. Naturally, the content of the course would satisfy the first goal. As Hered (1) has pointed out, much ran be accomplished by the way in which the content is presented. However, I believe it to be of value to present, general education topics in a more formal manner, first, by specific discussions and then hy repeated reference in connection with later discussions of course content. Unfortunately, students usually fail to "soak up" ideas unless they are forcefully brought to their attention. By way of illustration the following suggestions may be of value. Every teacher will use his own approach and examples, of course. The study of gases provides an ideal opportunity for a discussion of science in the process of discovery (the 1 Presented as part of the Symposium on Cultural Values of Chemistry at the 126th Meeting of the American Chemical So- scientific method) and in the process of verification (the philosophy of science). For an insight into the srienciety, New York, Septemher, 1954.
A m H o r r ~ Hthe general education movement has undergone widespread development in the past few years, only infrequently has its impact been felt in professional chemical circles. The discussion by Hered (1) is most welcome in calling attention to the need for the incorporation of aspects of general education into the conventional general chemistry course. While in general agreement with Hered's point of view, I feel that it would be desirable t o amplify his discussion. The terminology in almost all fields of education is somewhat ambiguous. I n particular, the terms "general education" and "liberal education" are frequently used interrhangeably. At t,he heart of the philosophy of general education lies the belief that there exists a common body of knowledge that all educated persons must share. While there is no specific agreement on the goals of general education in science, a perusal of the literature in this field (2, 3) suggests t.hat some knowledge in the following be accepted - areas would generally assdesirable: (1) The facts and theories of the physical world, (2) The spirit and methods of science, (3) The philosophy of science, (4) The role of research in society, (5) The aesthetic aspects of science. That an educated person should he acquainted with many of the salient facts and theories that form the content of the scientific enterprise mill arouse no disagreement. I t is likewise a truism that knowledge of the "scientific method" is desirable. But it is now generally recognized that there is no specific method that scientists use in their quest for new knowledge. Rather, this goal would be better expressed as the appreciation of t,he spirit of scientific inquiry or, as Conant (4) states it, "the tactics and strategy of science." All that can be hoped for is some understanding of the relevant factors by which science is advanced. Any attempt to describe in precise terms the complex psychological processes that lead to the construction of new experiments or to the formulation of new hypotheses is premature. Though the precise specification of the psychological aspect of science, i.e., science in the process of discovery, cannot now he achieved, the logical aspects of science can be discussed with reasonable clarity. For once the hypothesis is formed its validation by empirical test of the logical consequences becomes, in principle, straight-
APRIL, 1955
I
Level of Theow
Level of Empirical Laws
I
Boyle'e law
I
Charles' law
Deduction h u m p t i o m of the kineticmolecular theory
I
Graham's law
I
I
Viscositv. heat conduction, etc.
i
u
&.
---
-
Induction
tific method, the historical, case-history approach (4) is particularly valuable. The development of the concept of a gas and the formulation of the gas laws provide a suitable base for this exposition (5). After the inductive (psychological) approach has been explored, the hypothetico-deductive (logical) method can be iotroduced by way of the kinetic-molecular theory. The power of this latter method can he clearly shown by noting that at least three separate "laws" (Boyle's, Charles', and Graham's) are direct consequences of a few assumptions. In this connection a distinction between description and explanation can be made. A useful clarification of these terms has been made by Feigl (6). The experimental facts (description) are "explained" if they can be derived from theory. The distinction between the inductive and deductive approach can be driven home by means of the diagram. Another important aspect of the philosophy of science that merits attention is that of the limitations of science. Student interest in this topic is high and is further stimulated by asking students to judge the truth or falsity of a number of statements. In one group are statements of a factual character. These can he adjudged as true, false, or unknown, e. g., "bromine is red," "water is denser than lead," "more than 67 per cent of the inhabitants of the world weigh more than 157 lbs." While the answers to the first two questions are evident, the answer to the last is unknown. It would be a waste of time to determine the answer, but there is no reason why it could not be found. On the other hand are statements such as "murder is wrolig," "the food a t Bates' is good," "God is all-knowing." It is fairly easy to point out that the answers to these questions depend upon value norms or ethical standards. As only factual questions may properly be put to science, the area of scientific inquiry is thus delimited. The pseudo-conflict between religion and science can he effectively resolved a t this point. Useful source material for this topic can be found in books by Von Mises (7) and Northrop (8).
It is especially appropriate in these days when science is worshipped for the material goods it produces and where there is widespread mistrust of the theoretical scientist engaged in basic research, that some time be devoted to a discussion of the social role of basic research and its relation to applied research and technology. The rapidity with which basic knowledge can be applied (consider the development of the transistor) also adds t o the timeliness of this topic. Nor should the contribution of applied research to basic research be ignored (9). The need for reaso~lahlefinancial support of basic research can thus be emphasized, and the students in their role as citizens may use their influence in support of an enlightened policy toward support of pure research by government and private agencies. Undoubtedly, the most difficult of the general education goals to realize is the last one. To acquaint a student, even a science major, with the aesthetic appeal of science is an ambitious undertaking. But even though the student cannot be expected to achieve a real appreciation of this aspect of science, he should be aware that scientists are often moved by essentially nonrational and even artistic impulses. Why is a mathematical proof elegant? Why do we prefer a theory which is concise and employs only a few assumptions? What is the thrill of a new discovery? Science is a creative endeavor and the scientist a creator. This aspect of science is admirably treated by Sullivan (10). Two years' experience with this approach indicates that this minimum amount of general education can he introduced into the general chemistry course without sacrificing "essential content." Whether the goals can be achieved with such limited class discussion is uncertain, but if the student can he aroused to augment class material with outside reading, the results can be most gratifying.
Level of Observations (Individual Experiments)
A
LITERATURE CITED
(1) HEEED,W.,J. CHEM.EDUC.,30, 626 (1953). (2) MCGRATE,E. J., Editor, "Science in General Education," Wm. C. Bmwn Co., Dubuque, Iowa, 1948.
208
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
AND F.G. WATSON, Editors, "General Education in Science,'' Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1952. (4) CONANT, J. B., "On Understanding Science," Yale University Press, New Haven, 1951. (5) CONANT, J. B., "Robert Boyle's Experiments in Pneumatios," Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.,
(3) COHEN,I. J.,
1950.
(6) FEIGI,,AND SELLERS,Editom, "Readings in Philosophical
Analysis," Appleton-Century-Crofts, h e . , New York, 1949, p. 510.
(7) VON MISES, R., Tositivism," Haward University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1951. (8) NORTHROP, F. 5. C., "The Logic of the Sciences and the Humanities," The Maemillan Co., New York, 1947. (9) G m s o ~ R. , E., Am. Scientist, 41, 389 (1953). (10) Sullivan, J. W. N., " T ~ Limitations P of Science," Mentor, Kea York, 1949.
