Science in Liberal Education BROTHER I. LEO
S t . Mary's College, Winona, Minnesota and became differentiated by name and by their laboratory methods. The adolescent became, characteristically, argumentative in the course of a short time. During the mid-19th century, Herbert Spencer's essay on "What knowledge is of most worth?" appeared. McGucken comments dryly on this essay: "The question was proposed in no spirit of humble inquiry. To him the answer was simplicity itself. Science, he was sure, was the educational panacea" (p. 37). Conklin, commenting on a later period, says: "The warfare went on between the scientist and the classicist during the latter half of the 19th century and, occasionally, echoes of it are heard even to this day" (p. 490). The latter part of Conklin's quotation is an obvious understatement in view of the present limitless discussions, which are certainly more than echoes. To make ample room, as i t were, for the uncontrolled adolescent in the curriculum, to prevent his impetuous rampage from ruining the more dignified, less aggressive, and older competitors in the subject-matter field, President Eliot of Harvard introduced the elective system. Then the unabashed youth really made a way for itself. Today, science, with its laboratory methods, is so generally recognized as essential that it has been incorporated into the routine curricula of practically all liberal arts colleges. At times, however, the champions of liberal educaIn addressing myself, Gentlemen, to the consideration of a tion seem to have misgivings about the place of science question which has excited so much interest, and elicited so much in the curriculum. Consideration of the function and discussion at the present day, as that of University Education, I feel some explanation is due from me for supposing, after such content of such education and of the criteria that are high ability and wide experience have been brought to bear upon applied to subject matter by its exponents is essential it, that any field remains for the additional labors either of a dis- for an appreciation of the basic controversial issues that putant or af an. inquirer. If, nevertheless, I still venture to ask generate these doubts. INTRODUCTION
L
IBERAL education has become a topic of wide discussion today. Even popular journals have printed articles, such as those by Hutchins and Dewey, on the subject. Not long ago, the JOURNAL OF CHEMIc.a EDUCATION(12) published an editorial on the controversy between science and liberal education, and a t the 1944 fall meeting of the American Chemical Society, a paper on this subject was read before the Division of Chemical Education. It is apparent that the problems of liberal education are of interest to chemists. The purpose of this paper is to inform more scientists about the issues as presented by the champions of liberal education and to show that both liberal and science education can and should be jointly promoted. As one reads about liberal education, one soon realizes that much of the material is repetition and that the discussions on i t will continue as long as the human race exists. For there will always be youth to be educated; and there will always be influential elders who will differ in their concept of the ideal education that should be given to youth. Cardinal Newman, almost 100 years ago, recognized the age-old problem when, in the presentation of his idea of a university, he began with the apology:
permission to continue the discussion, already so protracted, it is because the subject of Liberal Education, and of the principles on which it must be conducted, has ever had a hold upon my own mind; and because I have lived the greater part of my life in a place which has all that time been occupied in a series of controversies both domestic and with strangers, and of measures experimentalor definitive, bearing upon it (Newman, p. 1).
The controversy between the exponents of science and the champions of the liberal arts did not become significant until the 19th century. In the Middle Ages, science, represented by astronomy, was a corporate part of the quadrivium. The new sciences began to exert an influence toward the end of the Renaissance Period through the pioneer work of Francis Bacon, Galileo, and Newton. The lusty infant, adopted probably because educators could not refuse to do so without incurring shame, became a troublesome adolescent during the past century. The beginning of the 19th century was the age of puberty when the individual physical sciences took on distinguishing characteristics
FUNCTION
AND
CONTENT
OF
LIBERAL
EDUCATION
The function of liberal education is to acquaint the individual with those faculties and capacities that make man a man and to increase the degree of their development in him. The distinguishing features of homo saplens are intellect and will. Usually, however, the writers refer to development of mind, which comprehends the imagination, simple perception, reasoning, judgment, and will. Does the function of liberal education, so stated, include other outcomes that may reasonably be expected, such as preparation for earning a living, for making a home, for active citizenship in a democracy? Yes, it does include all these social objectives, but for the most part, only in a potential manner. The exponents of liberal education maintain that, even though the emphasis is on the development of the individual, nevertheless he will simultane~usly,although indirectly,
187
receive that training and develop those traits that are necessary for success as a social being. In some cases, as training in such useful arts as are involved in the professions and other vocations, the specific skills are deliberately omitted because, so the champions of liberal education maintain, these s k i s can be mastered more efficiently and with better equipment in the professional schools and in commercial and industrial houses. The objectives of liberal education are attained presumably through subject-matter content. In medieval times, the liberal arts included the trivium, consisting of grammar, rhetoric, and logic; and the quadrivium, consisting of arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy. There was no differentiation then between the arts and the sciences as there is today; both were included in the expression, the liberal arts. A typical grouping of the fields of learning today is that offered by Greene, namely: mathematics, natural science, social studies, history and philosophy, and the humanities which include languages, arts and literatures, and morality and religion. These groupings are vital in discussions today because many liberal arts colleges, seemingly to recover their identity, are replacing "majors" which are too specialized by "fields of concentration" based more or less upon the above groupings. The question naturally arises: How much of this subject matter is necessary for a liberal education? Time is a determining factor. But time measurements are not uniform. The four-year college is almost a misnomer today. Even the eight-semester or twelvequarter college is now meaningless because there is no uniformity in the number of weeks, much less the number of days, that constitute these time units. There are some who would have all the time in college devoted to the liberal arts only. Van Doren maintains that " . . . if liberal education is, it is the same for everybody; that i t should be homogeneous through the four years" (p. 110). He rejects the idea of electives: . and a genuine curriculum," he adds later, "will permit no student to miss any important thing anywhere; the whole of i t will be prescribed, and prescribed for everybody" (p. 117).
.. .
". .
CRITERIA O F CONTENT
When the situation arises wherein one must determine whether a specificsubject, such as cosmology or cosmetology, is liberal, what criteria are there to aid one in deciding? A subject to be liberal must develop the mind, have disciplinary values, possess values of appreciation, and must consider the ever-present problems of man. Another criterion that is applied is whether or not the specific subject has already been accepted as liberal. It can be shown readily and easily that education in science develops the mind. Although the matter of science is the data of the physical world, the facts subjected to observation are abstracted by the mind and are not merely perceived. The imagination is stimu-
lated, for example, to picture a tetrahedral carbon atom. The reasoning powers are challenged toextendthesimple picture of an atom into the structural representation of complex molecules. Although no one has seen the simplest atom or the most complicated molecule, yet men's minds have postulated configurations from which they have predicted properties. Thus, a structural formula of quinine was tentatively proposed in 1908; yet the compound was not synthesized until 1944. The work of Woodward and Doering (19), the men who synthesized it, was planned and guided by the hypothetical structure. Such astounding conformity between hypothesis and prediction leads to more generalizations. Of the mental faculties, imagination, reason, and judgment are particularly developed through education in science. The will functions in its resolve to pursue further an idea, whether it be the searching curiosity of an adolescent to see what "makes it go" or the trying hours of labor that culminate in the extension of the frontiers of knowledge by the research worker. Does education in science have disciplinary values? This requirement is satisfied by the most basic objective of science teaching, whether a t the elementary or college level; and that is training in the scientific method of learning, the observation-hypothesis-verification-generalization-prediction procedure. Writers unanimously stress the fact that this method of science is far more significant than the facts of science. Other disciplinary traits that are acknowledged outcomes of science education are the use and understanding of symbolism, the self-sacrificing spirit of search for truth, and the habit of critical and suspended judgment. Does education in science have appreciation values? Although the concept of values is the one bone of contention around which most of the criticism and denunciation of science rages, yet the informed and educated person could see, if he would, that science education does lead to appreciations. Is there any routine school subject in which the immature person becomes more concerned about intellectual honesty than science? Youth are urged to record observations as seen and not as they should be; they are told that no greater harm is done to the pursuit of truth than the perpetuation of false observations and data. That errors may occur in even the technical literature is illustrated by such discoveries as that by Frolich (16) who found the melting point of butadiene in one reference to he in error by more than 100'. In what courses, other than science, are there superior opportunities for the development and appreciation of such character traits as calmness, patience, objectivity, and tolerance? So; if by values the writers mean those concepts that develop a philosophy of life that becomes man, education in science has that possibility. Admittedly, such edncation can lead to materialism and other illiberal outcomes, but the possibility of arriving a t a sound philosophy of life is inhkent in science education. The other interpretation of values is an appreciation of those things that become a man-for example, art, literature,
the other humanities. Scientists are not incapable of enjoying beauty in art or in nature or in literature; in fact, not a few of them have avocations in the fine arts. Though science education may not promote such appreciations directly, nevertheless the interests of many scientists, in nature especially, suggest that there are outcomes in their training that develop not only a philosophy of life but also an appreciation of aesthetic values. Another liberal-art criterion for subject matter is whether or not it pertains to the ever-present problems of man. Science education is related to peace and war, to world economy as demonstrated by the current struggle for strategic and essential materials, to social problems as illustrated by the condemnation these days of technology and technocracy, to moral problems as instanced by the issues of materialism and hedonism as opposed to the supernatural and the spirit of sacrifice. "The physical sciences in the last 50 years," according to Holmes, "have exerted a greater influence on the intellectual, economic, and social life of the world than any other agency in comparable times" (p. 68). Flexner savs that "while Dure science is revolutionizinp human thought, appli& science is destined to revoli tionize human life. We are a t the beginning, not a t the end, of an epoch" (p. 19). Cole also realizes the contribution of science for he writes: "Among the forces shaping modern civilization, none has been more far reaching than experimental science" (p. 73). If science is having such momentous effects on civilization and if it is only in its infancy, surely it behooves educators to recognize its relations to the ever-present problems of man. Does science meet the requirement that, to be liberal, subject matter should be already recognized as such? In medieval times, i t was included in the quadrivium. During the 19th century the newer sciences, chemistry and physics particularly, were added, as such, to the liberal arts curriculum. Practically all the writers admit the necessity of science for a liberal education. "Science is essential to education a t the same moment that poetry and philosophy are," according to Van Doren (p. 137). Hutchins, in his book, "Education for Freedom," maintains that "the rise of science is the most important fact of modern life. No student should be permitted to complete his education without understanding it" (p. 34). Greene writes that "they, the natural sciences, merit inclusion in a liberal curriculum, because they offer such excellent discipline in careful observation and objective interpretation-a discipline essential to the search for truth in any field of inquiry" ( P 47). REASONS FOR THE CONTROVERSY
If the content of science is admitttedly liberal, then why the continual controversy about i t ? The controversy is due to those inherent features that tend to make it illiberal. Its most widely denounced limitation is that it does not lead directly enough to an apprecia-
tion of human values. All the citations below confirm this statement. Quite apart from a changing curriculum t h a t pandered more and more t o the whims of youth, the purpose for which t h e scientific method was enlisted contributed t o t h e breakdown of human values. Were not students completely t o dissociate social meaning or purpose from the critical inquiries they were making? It was claimed that t h e personal equation would interfere with soundness of methodological procedure (Cole, p. 20). Science does not tell us where t o go. Men may employ i t for good or evil purposes; but it is the men t h a t have t h e purposes and they do not learn them from their scientific studies (Hutchins, "Education for Freedom," p. 34). Philosophy's most practical concern is with the ends of action, and here it is autonomous, for science cannot legislate among desires. The obligation t o be scientific is something that ethics. not science, announces. No perfection of the scientific method could produce the proposition t h a t justice is good, or t h a t wisdom is better than knowledge (Van Doren, p. 140).
The naturnl sciences have in common ou interest in the world of 'fact" as contmsted with t h e realm of "values." . . . Thc pure srirnccs arc dewriptive and explanatory rathrr than cvnluative; their interpretations are concerned with the structure and behavior of natural phenomena rather than with their significance for man (Greeue, p. 49).
It must he conceded that there is hardly a writer on liberal education who does not somewhere denounce the illiberal character of education in science even though all agree a t the same time that the subject is essential for a liberal education. As a consequence of the predominance of the illiberal traits of science education in some institutions, many isms have arisen which are violently attacked by all leaders of liberal education. Some of these are materialism, mechanism, determinism, scientism, and industrialism. The citations below are typical denunciations : I propose to consider the college in relation t o the conception of life now dominant in our society, which I take t o be materialistic and humanitarian, and in relation t o our prevailing philosophy of education, far which John Dewey and Teachers College are largely responsible. I n consequence of these forces, as I conceive, the liberal college is threatened with extinction (Foerster, p. v). A nation lives by the spirit. The undue cultivation of thepositive sciences produces a sclerosis of the human soul. I t is productive of a materialistic ootlaok. The practice of constantly dealing with themeasurable aspect of reality develops the mental habit of approaching life and its problems as if made up entirely of elements calculable in terms of quantity (Leen, p. 241). The Apostles of Science have cried from the housetops t h a t science is the only means whereby we can educate America for a changing civilization, and, lo, the changed civilization is almost a t our doors and finds us still lamentably unprepared. Science has brought t h e Machine into the world, and the Machine has turned out t o be the monster of Frankenstein (McGucken, p. 38).
Science is also blamed for the trends away from Christianity. The existence of the supernatural and revelation are denied by some of the spokesinen for science. Thus Conklin writes: "To the man of science, nature does not represent the mere caprice of supernatural powers, to be altered by magic, sacrifice or
supplication" (p. 495). Not quite so direct an attack as Conklin's words is the conclusion in Dewey's article in Fortune last year: Educational philosophy now has t h e opportunity t o break down the philosophy of fixation that bolsters external authority in opposition t o freecooperation. I t must contest thenotion t h a t morals are somethine whollv, seoarate from and above science and thr scientific mrthod I t must lwlp banish the conception that thc daily work and vwation of man arc ncgligihle in comparison with lilerary pursuit%,awl that human drstlny hcrc and now is of slight importance in comparison with some supernatural destiny. I t must accept wholeheartedly the scientific way, not merely of technology, but of life in order t o achieve the promise of modern democratic ideals.
.
~~
~~
Brody's biological approach to morality and religion, and his suggestion that social technologists could relieve our problems through the development of a religious ritual based on all historic religions and scientific knowledge, implies that Christianity has exhausted its contribution to civilization. When either scientists or pseudoscientists advocate that the scientific method be applied to the field of morals and religion, it is questionable if society will benefit by such a procedure. "Renan," according to Van Doren "could believe a t 25 that the poetry, morality, and myth which science had so far destroyed would be rebuilt by i t into a 'reality a thousand times superior.' Science, unaided, has no such powers; and i t has had little aid" (p. 137). Other undesirable results that are attrihuted to the illiberal character of education in science are utilitarianism, specialization, and pseudoscience. Newman long ago pointed out the trend of science toward the utilitarian : And in like manner t h e Baconian Philosophy, b y using its physical sciences in t h e service of man, does thereby transfer them from the order of Liberal Pursuits to, I do not say the inferior, but the distinct class of the Useful (p. 109).
The effect of specialization, as Adelman (p. 46) exa la ins. is the loss of a sense of orooortiou: one hit of iesearch is blown up to impossible dimehsions irrespective of its significance to history, to culture, to people. Flexner condemns specialization a t length: Now science, while widening our vision, increasing our satisfactions, and solving our problems, brings with it dangers peculiarly its own. We can become so infatuated with progress in knowledge and control-hoth of which I have unstintedly emphasiized-that we lose our perspective, lose our historic sense, lose a philosophic outlook, lose sight of relative cultural values. Something like this has happened t o many. .of our forwardhoking and highly specialized young votaries of science. They are culturally tca often thin and metallic; their training appears technological rather than broadly ,and deeply scientific (pp. 20-21).
.
Ioomfor doubt leaves specialization when he writes:
tion, by the titles of articles and textbooks, is denounced more vigorously by the scientists themselves than by the exponents of liheral education. Another concomitant of science education which is roundly condemned is the dogmatism that results. Thus, Van Doren writes:
his view
On
Applied science t h a t has vocational interests principally in mind and specialized science and research t h a t keep t h e purpose of graduate schools t o t h e fore will have little or no place in libera1 arts education (p. 92).
Pseudoscience as typified by some work in educa-
The clearest prwf of t h e scientist's intellectual immaturity has been his dogmatism. He probably despises t h e medieval schoolmen as his 17th century ancestors did, but there is no gdbd answer t o Whitehead's remark that "the sort of person who was a scholastic doctor in a medieval university today is a scientific professor in a modern university." He accuses everybody of dogmatism except himself, yet he is capable of that sin t o an asphyxiating degree. When this is true, t h e reason is t h a t he does not know where his ideas come from, and whether they are good id-. Ideas do not come from experiment. Their origin is the mind's experience, and t h e mind has many mansions (pp. 138-9).
Sufficient explanation has been given for the controversy through the years between the champions of liheral and science education respectively. In brief summary, the causes of contention seem to be, among others: the rise of isms that jeopardize Christianity, such as materialism and scientism; the appearance of educational policies that are detrimental to culture, such as vocationalism, specialization, and pseudoscience; lastly, the dogmatism of some leaders in the scientific field. All of these are attrihuted to the illiberal character of some education in science, particularly to its failure to develop appreciation values. The question now arises, how does one account for the intensification of the controversy today? The immediate answer lies in the War. Van Doren, in the introduction to his book, says: 'The immediate occasion for this book is the War, which in the United States has almost completely suspended liheral education." Baxter comments: "Our struggle with the Axis powers suddenly confronted our liberal arts colleges with a threat far greater than any since the Civil Wax. The danger was twofold: to the colleges themselves, and to the ideals and principles of liberal education" (p. 269). The leaders of our liberal colleges are rightly concerned about the war training programs on their campuses. At present, about the only men who can get a traditional liberal education are those physically unfit for military service. Due to their small number, few colleges are able to offereven them such an education. Moreover, the military training programs are extinguishing the desire for a liheral education in the hearts of male youth. One university which has no school of engineering found that more than 80 per cent of its 377 trainees who plan to return to college after discharge aim to take en~neerinp(31). The G. I. Bill and the possible interruption i f education a t the end of the 12th grade for a year of national service are likelv to increase the ~roblemsof the liberal collenes. ~ o t ~ m a nhave y faith'in the words of Adelman Gho says that "young people will return to you surfeited, sick unto death of technological scientific detail," There are issues other than the War which are exciting the champions of the liberal arts to renewed
editorial and journalistic activity. One is the trend away from democracy. There undoubtedly is strong conviction in the minds and intense feeling in the hearts of the many writers who claim that the only hope for the survival of our democracy is the continuance of liheral education. The blame for undesirable social and political trends is not one from which scientists can totally absolve themselves. Their own leaders such as Conant, Curme, and Murphy, claim that it is time that scientists contribute their talents to the solution of problems outside of their laboratories. Moreover, the scientists should a t least be aware that war breeds alarmists, that some men-among them, Michael Williams-and no one says they are wrong, assert that even a t the present moment diabolical inventions are being developed in laboratories and workshops which are so destructive to life and property that even small groups, who have access to them, can frustrate the best plans of the best government. Educational trends that are insidiously challenging the liheral arts program are survey courses, general education, and the awarding of the B.A. degree a t the end of the 14th grade. All of these developments contain liberal features but hardly qualify as liheral education because, if common opinion is correct, they place emphasis on the informational to the neglect of the formational purpose of liheral education. Another innovation that is creating prohlems for the liberal arts program is the publication of lists of accreditation or approval hy professional societies, such as the American Chemical Society and the American Medical Association. In the attempt to elevate standards and to lessen the competition for employment, these professional organizations demand funds, space, equipment, and faculties that necessarily jeopardize the liheral offerings of those colleges which strive for such recognition. Van Doren, however, seems optimistic. He says that "it may be that the reform of the college will come from the professions after all: from their discovery that what they need most is good minds to work with, and that the first thing a doctor, lawyer, priest, or engineer has to he is a person" (p. 168). Of the many reasons offered to explain the intensification of the controversial issues involved in the promotion of liheral education, four are ascribed in part a t least to science: the War, changes in the philosophy of life and of education, trends away from democracy, and professional accreditation. Because it is the source, in the minds of some people, of most of the problems, science is the scapegoat for all the evils that have befallen the liberal arts colleges. Open-minded people are aware that science education is as essential as liheral education. Instead of berating it, they will rather concentrate on the means for the joint and simultaneous promotion of both types of education, if they must be considered separately. JOINT PROMOTION O F LIBERAL AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
The current controversy between the exponents of
science education and liberal education will not be relieved unless the partisans see each other's problems, analyze the criticisms reciprocally given, and mutually benefit by the interests which they have in common. The criticisms of science education have already been presented a t length. A description of common policies and interests and means of promoting them is the task that remains. One initial precaution is to recognize the fact that there are zealots in both camps. As is true of most enthusiasts, their ideas have value but their application requires good judgment. Gideonse wants science to predominate. He writes: In place of the metaphysical orientation of the classical academy, the theological orientation of the medieval university, and the literary orientation of the Renaissance university, modern higher education must put its main emphasis on the method of science (p. 27).
However, he wants science to he tempered, he wants its champions to be aware of possible shortcomings, for he says: Science must resist its own tendencies t o dogmatism and its occasional disdain for humanistic interests. It must not neglect its own rich historical past; it must acknowledge responsibility for exhibiting its own unity and for developing an organized curriculum on the basis of that unity; it must help make explicit its methods; it must be interested in the humanistic implications of the scienti6c habit: it must, in short, be willing t o round itself out logically and philosophically (p. 27).
There are champions of liheral education who will admit almost anything is liberal but science. Then there are those who recognize science, but in a minor role. Thus Foerster writes: Plainly, the curriculum must be dominantly composed of the humanities, just because ours is an age of science. A college remaking its curriculum must candidly face the fact that any attempt t o cultivate the humhities will inevitably mean a lessening of attention t o the sciences. Nor do I think we need regret this, since human values not scientific values--yes, even in an age called scientificare always the dominant concern of men (p. 81).
...
.. .
Lastly, there are those who actually recognize the contribution of science to liheral education. For example, Van Doren says: The physical sciences are a problem for the educator because they do their work so well. They must be caught up with, if only t o be subdued. But the way t o catch up with them is not t o sermonize against their inhumanity. The liberal arts survive more intact in their laboratories than elsewhere in education today; otherstudies, studying them, could learn about themselves (p. 136).
Another policy recommended for the contestants in this educational controversy is to consult the recognized literature of the opposing groups. Really, i t is unscientific and presumptuous to expect to appreciate the other side of the controversy, much less to argue against it, by depending on intuition and experience only. Familiarity with the other's viewpoint will decrease the differences, reveal a common ground of understanding, and very likely uncover some inevitable and unsolv-
able problems. If the last are admitted and the preceding ones stressed, then society is sure to benelit. Already leaders in both groups admit that science education is essential to a liberal education and many champions of science certainly want their students to have a liberal education. The issue is not "either or"; it is rather some of both with emphasis on the method of instruction and concentration in one field of learning. In their own technical journals, scientists are being urged by their leaders to contribute to the solution of social, economic, and political problems. If the advocates of such a policy are sincere they will see in time that the urging will achieve observable results when the busy members of the professions will have had an op~ortunityto develop an interest in such things by taking formal courses in them during their studentdays. Otto Eisenschiml has been ausading for some time for chemists to take an interest in their own economic problems. Even though the problems are personal and financial, his efforts meet only discouraging indifference. Would the response be as poor if his listeners had previously had some contact with sociology and economics? Teachers of science are the ones who can do most to lessen the intensity of the controversy. Science can be taught in such a way that many of the benefits of a liberal education are obtained. Teachers should stress principles rather than facts; content rather than method; observation and reasoning rather than techniques. In the volume, "Design for General Education," sponsored by the American Council on Education, this comment on science courses is found: "The content of both of these courses (biology and physical science) must be ruthlessly cut from the encyclopedic volume of the typical college courses in order to provide time for analysis and interpretation", (p. 108). The history of science should not be ignored. "I am convinced," says Holmes, "that science should be taught from the historical point of view in order to broaden the viewpoint of the technical man and the average citizen" (p. 71). Biographical information would be liberalizing. Would not the story of Pasteur, of Madame Curie, of Nikola Tesla, stimulate many youths to pursue knowledge in spite of economic handicaps? The historical-biographical approach makes possible the development of international interests and brings home the realization that geniuses, that brains, are not a monopoly of one race, creed, or nation. To ignore history and biography is to save time for more theory and current developments; but i t is also, as Greene (p. 73) says, committing oneself to narrow provincialism of time and ignoring one's humanistic heritage. It would not be out of place if teachers of science would show youth some of the economic, political, and social problems involved in the disposal of war plants, the competition between the petroleum industry and agriculture for the manufacture of synthetic rubber, and the nature and significance of international cartels. All such materials would be liberalizing. Most instructors do justice to the scientific method and the significance and uses of
symbolism, two of the disciplinary values of science. That thinking men are of one mind in seeking a common ground for free and intelligent discussion is evident today. "War is hell'-granted; hut "it is an ill wind that profits nobody." The fifth meeting of the Con: ference of Science, Philosophy, and Religion has already been held (11). Leaders with such intensely d i e r e n t viewpoints have probably never assembled for a common purpose prior to this conference. Yet, they have agreed to submerge their fundamental differences and to cooperate on problems that they can solve together. This policy is the essential one that is advocated by this article. The inclusion of a fair sampling of fields of learning essential for culture and the stressing of the liberal values inherent in science-that would be the "oul' dash" to science education that inspiration is to athletic teams. There's a lot to be said for a bit of scientific play, right enough. But still an' all, the oul' dash, as Malachy here says. goes a long way, a hell of a long way. There's no science can stand up by itself to the headlong msh without some strength behind it. But, by cripes, if yeh can get the dash an' the science together, then yeh'll have the right team (Purcell. "Hamahan's Daughter"). REFERENCES
(1) ADELMAN, H. W., "The fence," Sc. Monthly, 58, 415 (June, 1944). (2) American Council on Education, "A Design for General Education," Reports of Committees and Conferences, Series --.- 1. No. 18. Tune. 1944. (3) BAXTER,1:P.."~%mi&ion on Liberal Education Report," Bull. Assoc. Am. Coll., 29, 269 (May, 1943). (4) BRODY,S., "Science and social wisdom," Sc. Monthly, 59, 203 (September, 1944). (5) COLE.S. G.. "Liberal Education in a Democracv." .. Harner & ~ r o t h & s New . York, 1940. (6) CONKLIK.E. G., "The place of science in the Liberal arts college," Bull. Assoc. Am. Coll., 24, 487 (December. (1938). (7) CONANT, S. B,."Liberal education," Vital Sgeeckes. 3, 253 (February, 1937). (8) CONANT, J. B.. "Science and the national welfare," Chem. Eng. Neus, 22,1642 (October 10.1944). G. 0.. "Chemistry for the many," ibid., 22, 900 (9) CURME. (June lo, 1944). DEWEY,JOHN, "Challenge t o liberal thought," Fortune, 30, 155 (August, 1944). Editorial. "Common . mrnose." America, 71, 594 (Septem. ber 23. 1944). "Edttor's outlook," J. CHEM.EDUC., 21, 365 (August, 1944). EISENSCHIML, 0 , "TO the ed~tor, Memph-Ion, 3, 269 (May. 1944);' FLEXNER, A.. Universities, American, English, German," Oxford University Press, New York, 1930. FOERSTER, N.. "The Future of the Liberal College," D. Amleton-Centuw Co.. New York. 1938. FRO%", P. K., AND C. E. MORREL~, "Butadiene," Chem. Eng. N m s , 21, 1139 (July 25. 1943). GIDEONSE, H. D.. "The Higher Learnlng in a Democracy," Farrar & Rinehart. Inc.. New York. 1937. G R ~ E NT. E , M. AND O'THERS, " ~ i b e r a l Education Reexamined," Harper & Brothers, New York, 1943. "Industrial news, Ckem. Eng. News. 22, 730 (May 10. 1944). H. N.,"The physical sciences. Contributions to (20) HOLMES, liberal education in colleges;' Bull. Aaaoc. A m . Coll., 23, 67 (March, 1937). R. M., "The Higher Learning in America," (21) HUTCHINS, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1936. R. M., "Education for Freedom," Louisiana (22) HUTCHINS, State University Press, Baton Rouge, 1943.
..
(23) JOHNSTON, J. B., "Education for Democracy," University of Minnesota Press, Min?eapolis, 1934. J. B., "The Liberal College in a Changing So(24) JOHNSTON, ciety," The Century Co., New York, 1930. (25) LEACOCK, STEPHEN."TOOMuch College," Dodd, Mead & Company, New York, 1942. (26) LEEN,E., "What Is Education," Sheed &Ward, New York, 1944.
(27) MARITAIN, J., "Education at the Cros~roads," Yale University Press, New Haven, 1943. (28) W. 1.. "The Catholic Wav in Education." . . MCGUCKEN. ' Bruce ~ublishi
