do the same while allowing more tactical flexihlity on the surface. Reformation in science education is a good idea, hut it must he very carefully pondered and executed.
Rethlnklng the Relormatlon To the Editor;
Thomas Szell United Nations International Schwl 24-50 East River Drive, New York 10010
I would like to add a few thoughts to J. Dudley Herron's article on "Science, Society, and the Reformation" [J.CHEM. EDUC.,59,561 (1982)l. The analogy between religion and science is appropriate. Michael Polanyi pointed out in 1957: "Today, when any human thought can he discredited by branding it unscientific, the power exercised previously by theology has passed over t o science;. . ."I liked this comparison and enjoyed Herron's witty polemic which contained a number of flashes of good thoughts. Reading his paper, I kept expecting a specific conclusih ur suggest& that l n e coulh takb w thr c l a k o m , hut instead of that I found only scattered, uncertain hum. I don't blame him-these are h&d problems. Herron wrote most courageously about science education of the "laity" and posed a poetical question whether "we insist that others see and appreciate the theological argument that captured our fancy when there is a central faith that adequately satisfies their needs." What satisfies people's need depends on the kind of literacy they and their teachers are trying to achieve. It is self-evident that science made accessihle to the laity must be different from what we offer to the "clerics." I t is experience that when we try to "pump" too much and too manv details. manv of the lavmen become dropouts. This reinforces the long-believed assumption that science is to he taueht differentlv on different levels, dependent on the goals 2 the disciples. Thus, whether o r not the concentration calculation of species of an aqueous solution of weak electrolytes is to be taught depends merely on who is to be taught. Science is certainly more than just interesting; it is deadlyimportant, and students are willing to take the hard road paved with perspiration if they know that they need it. They do it, as for example the pre-medical students do, although many of them are primarily not even interested in chemistry which they regard merely as a tool. Students are ready to learn once they are motivated one way or another. On the laitv level. one canmotivate them hv making the suhiect ~,~ easily accessible and sugarcoating i t by making i t interesting (e.e.. , - . Herron's "kitchen chemistw.") - . But we must exercise here extreme care and caution, for we may cut off vital parts and hide essential concepts in order to make it attractive and easy to digest, so that a t the end the identity of the subject mav not even he recoenizable anv . longer. - This would be too cheap a victory, too much of a sacrifice. There is a limit as to how far one can go with this kind of a "reformation," for the essence of science, among others, is "longing to know, question all things" as Herron correctly pointed out, not: longing to know only that which gives fun and question things to which there are easy answers. Reformation may become simple destruction, or a "mickey-mousification" leading to a kind of literacy I would not like to gain, and I am sure neither would Herron. As far as I know, the Reformation was quite keen on adhering to the Scriptures and safeguarded what they thought were the essentials of the Faith. We as "clerics" of science must ~~~~
~~~~~
~
1030
~~~
Journal of Chemical Education
-
Two Fasclnatlng Papers by G. N. Lewis To the Editor:
I wish to call attention to two delightful papers by G. N. Lewis which were not referenced in your report of the symposium about G. N. Lewis. The first paper, "Geometries,"' contains a discussion of alternatives t o the fifth postulate (the parallel postulate) of Euclidean geometry. This paper illustrates the great breadth of Lewis's interests, his concern for the axioms of a field, and his extremely lucid writing style. The second paper, "Generalized Thermodynamics including the theori of Fl~ctuationi,"~also demonstrates Lewis's concern for the implicit axioms of :I field. Lewis considers how we can use caiculus to analyze the macroscopic properties of a substance whose microscopic state is constantly changing. His conclusion is that we assume that the different microstates of a fluctuating system are not easily distinguished exnerimentallv hv their macrosco~icmonerties. Lewis notes that this assumpiion makes it poisibie f& us to use calculus in thermodynamics and turns classical thermodynamics with its second law into an approximation. I suggest elsewhere that we encounter the situation of concern to Lewis for substances in the critical region where cooperative effects are important. The generalization of the second law of thermodynamics, I propose, is the statement that we must take cognizance of the existence of fluctuations. noise, and constant irreversible loss of information in our mathematics by considering Zermelo's axiom of choice false. This generalization recognizes the limitations of our classical mathematics and thermodynamics which were noted by Lewis. Perhaps we now place too much reliance on mathematical analysis, on computer outputs, and on numbers and not enough reliance on intuition and experiment. Even though the two papers I outlined were published over 50 years ago, they remain timely and should be presented in the classroom to help counteract this tendency.
'
Lewis, G. N., in Mathematics edited by S. Rapport and H. Wright, New Ywk University Press. NY. 1963, pp. 170-181. Originally published in Anatomy of Science. Yale University Press. 1926. *Lewis, G. N. J. Amer. Chem. Soc., 53 2578 (1931). Walter G. Zlnman 8 Coventry Road Syasset, NY 11791
