Principles and Utility Politicians and journalists need to believe that everything ultimatelv has a use or an aoolication. Indeed. it is orobablv true that most things ultimately do have som; sort bf utilit; given the general practical bent of humans. However, some discoveries in science, and especially those in mathematics, seem obviously devoid of such characteristics. Thus, the relatively recent discovery of high-temperature superconductivity was quickly translated into potentially realizable applications. Contrast this, however, to the development of an acceptable extrathermodynamic assumption that permits the establishment of sinele-ion thermodvnamic oroperties. Only the most far-sighted scientists could estiblish a link between the latter and some future human utility, and, even then, the details would be debatable. A nonscientist listening tosuch a debate would be struck bv the importance attached to the nature of the evidence available to verify each scientist's conclusion concerning why humanity would or would not benefit by establishing good extrath&modynamic assumption. Both the pro and con arguments would orobablv be devoid. for eood and loeical reasons. of a scieniific (i.;, a testabl;) b a h and, heLce, would bd subject to criticism increasine as the areuments departed from testability. Such a deb&e occurring in a publicor political forum would certainlv give the impression of divisiveness between the discussant;,'both of whim could have recognized scientific credentials. Nonscientists priw to debates of this character could choose either side, depending upon their personal predilection, and find support for their choice. But it would not be a scientifically based choice.
a
If the relationship between scientific discovery and utility is so tenuous, what is the excuse for doing science a t the public's expense? Doing science is useful because it sharpens the mind of the doer. But to what end? Some would argue that it is to develop skills in logical thought and in recognizing the nature and quality of evidence. The acquisition of such skills should be the nrimarv obiective of our efforts to teach chemistry to nonscience students. The problem, of course, is to use chemistrv (or anv science) as a vehicle to introdice and develop such skills, io generalize them, and to transfer them to real-life, nonscience-oriented situations. Perhaps this is too much to hope to accomplish in one or two courses, but it should be attempted. Critics of the public support of science focus on the uselessness of much of what is accomplished in the name of science. Thev auestion. for examole. the usefulness of the quest for th;"good ext;athermod;namic assumption". The return for the public monies expended is too small to be worth the effori they say. Yet, the acquisition of truth and principles is no more useless than the mastery of the parallel bars, the well-thrown curve ball, or the forward pass. Our society expends enormous sums as well as human effort on such exercises without asking what higher end they serve. Thus it should also be for science education. The same kind of faith that the public accords to the importance of sports in human development should-and must-be extended to science education. Science education is at least as imnortant as sports; some would argue that it is more importe.nt. But that's the subiect for another discussion a t another time. JJL
Volume 65
Number 12 December 1988 1027
