science and philosophy of the ancients were strongly anthropocentric; we were the center of everything; the universe revolved around the earth and all God's creation was for the benefit of man. We have since learned better, but the thought which I submit this mdnth is that modern science education is in some danger of falling into the same error. Applied science-which for all practical purposes is engineering-is quite properly devoted to the end of improving man's material comforts and his standard of living. To many of us, it may appear that there is no higher human ambition; hut I, for one, believe that there is. Science has a higher appeal than to man's creature needs. At most, this only puts into new words the old contrast between technology and pure science, with the usual emphasis upon the complete impersonality of the latter. But we need to he continually reminded of this. Present-day education is criticized for neglect of the subjects like mathematics, science, languages, and others which require close and vigorous application, and for emphasis upon group projects and activities which are supposed to lead to "social adjustment." Granting that education in the past may have been short on socialization, I have a strong conviction that man's moral, spiritual, and intellectual fiber is better strengthened by the proper relation between himself and the great wonderful universe outside him, than by holding hands and singing songs with his friendly neighbors. Or is my philosophy merely old-fashioned? For a long time now, the tendency has been to build science curricula around man's daily needs and activiT H E
ties: Unit 1, Man's Food; Unit 2, Man's Shelter and Housing; Unit 3, Communication; Unit 4, Transportation; etc. Can this be because the curriculum makers have been so preoccupied with their little daily rounds that they are oblivious to the many exciting and motivating elements in the phenomena of nature itself? Anyway, I think the emphasis is being put upon the wrong thing. We are again making man's comforts and activities the center of everything, whereas all that he learns should increase his humility. Can this be one of the reasons why we are failing to attract into science the number of students we need? We are now dealing with the results of science rather than science itself. Such a "man-centered" curriculum is a poor start for future scientists; it is furthermore a poor contribution to a program of general education. We are now saying to our students: "See what wonderful things science has given us! We can now travel 1000 miles an hour, through the air; in grandfather's day 20 miles an hour, on the ground, was a good clip." Fine, so what? We have never satisfactorily answered the question why we live in this world, but certainly we do not do so merely tomakemorevitamins and antibiotics in order to live longer and travel faster. It is better to believe that we do so in order t o understand and appreciate our' world and all that lives and moves within it. This gives a t the same time a personal and a social motive for our knowledge. If we make such a belief the motivation of our science education I think we will have something which will attract and survive and will realize the old admonition that man cannot live by bread alone.
