Most of what we claim we know is
hearsay. For example, we know that a
year is 365 days. How do we know that? How many of us can
justify - based on our own observations - that the earth completes
one orbit of the sun in what we call a year? (Or how many of us could
justify that it orbits the sun, a much more difficult question
actually, or any of the many other "known" truths about our
particular planet?) Simple observations allow us to determine which
direction earth spins on its axis, which way the moon travels in its
orbit about the earth, and which way earth orbits about the sun - but
few people ever make those observations. The absence of the
ability to determine the truths of those things that are about us
every day - or to even understand the process for such determinations -
makes us susceptible to misconceptions and untruths and lead us to either
become suspicious or totally accepting of anything that sounds like
science. We live in such a technologically complex world (most of us now
have the ability to retrieve information from all corners of the globe in
seconds without knowing how the system works) that it is not surprising
that most people assume that they cannot understand the principles that
govern our universe. And when we do not understand even the
nature of the human endeavor we call science, we can easily find
ourselves believing anything - or worse, nothing - that we hear that
sounds at all technical or "scientific". The role of science education,
in the words of David Saxon, is to create the ability to distinguish
sense from nonsense.
"Science at the university" has a number
of meanings. We generally think
of the university as an institution with the primary purpose of
transmitting information. And if teaching is central to the
mission of the university, it is only reasonable that teaching science
would be one of its goals. But that view suggests that "science" represents a body of knowledge that one
just learns - like the alphabet - and that one of the functions of the
university is to merely pass that knowledge along. But science at the
university is much more complex than that. Because what we call science
has less to do with collections of facts that one must somehow internalize
than it does the process of exploring ideas and principles and the
reasons that underly the behaviour of all elements of our universe.
Science at the university has at least three important roles:
Teaching the principles that govern how our universe works - and the
methods and thought processes associated with developing our
understanding of those principles; offering access to the most
sophisticated of scientific ideas and new developments - the current
work that might ultimately change our lives or our perspective; and
engaging in the scientific process itself. It is worth exploring
each of those roles.
Much more important than what we know is
how we know what we know. It is
not the collective knowledge that is as important as the
underlying principles that connect the uncountable number of possible
observations and phenomena. Science teaching should focus on the
concepts and fundamental principles and lines of reasoning. The only
reason why you should study, say, incline plane problems or
oscillatory motion or trajectory problems in an introductory physics
course is because those problems represent a way to give meaning to
the principles that relate to the motions of all objects. Knowing
the solutions to such problems is not important. Understanding the
principles and being able to apply those principles to problem
solving in general gives both the student of engineering or
technology the background necessary to become successful in his or
her field of study and the humanist the ability to distinguish
between explanations that are based on fundamental principles and those
that are not.
Part of the fascination about science
and its methods is the change
of viewpoint that the study offers. It IS fascinating to peer
through a telescope - or a microscope - and just see things on a
different scale or to explore questions from a different perspective
than that of our everyday activity. That change in viewpoint can
give insight into how things work - and occasionally leads to
profound conclusions - even shifts in the paradigms of human thought.
(Observations in 1610 similar to those mentioned in the opening
conversation with my son when he was young led Galileo to conclude
that Copernicus was right - the universe cannot be geocentric - a
conclusion he suffered for.) The university can offer access to
those processes of discovery and to both microscopic and cosmologic
viewpoints both through the laboratory experience and through the
distillation of current scientific work and its integration into the
classroom and the public consciousness. Current research in all
areas of scientific endeavor is generally so speciallized and
sophisticated that only others working in similar areas can
understand it fully. Yet interpreting the nature and significance of
current work IS one of the important functions of a university's
science faculty. And that access to the work of science can change our
worldview.
Science is a process. And central to
the process of science is
inquiry. Participating in the scholarship of discovery - as
university research has come to be known since the Carnegie Report on
Higher Education of a few years ago - is also an important component
of the intellectual life of a university. Much of the fundamental
scientific research done in the world is done at universities. The
reason, of course, is that the goal of research done at the
university is often quite different than that done in other
environments. It is ultimately driven by the interests of the
individual researcher and his or her need to be a contributor to the
current understanding of the discipline. At major research
universities, the success of a faculty member in the institution may
depend on the success of the funded research activities. At an
undergraduate institution like this one, the goals of those
participating in an ongoing research program are often broader and
can include incorporating undergraduate students into the process to
give them insight into their discipline differently than that gained
in the classroom. The research activity is thus a part of the
teaching activity - giving those students the important requisite
tools for ultimately carrying on their own inquiries.
Science is a uniquely human endeavor -
and it is inherently
empirical. Model building - the development of ideas and concepts
based on pure logic, of course, is an integral part of the process.
But it becomes a science only when the ideas are testable. "Science
is self-correcting," in the words of the late Carl Sagan. It is a
process which continually examines and modifies our understanding of
natural phenomena and the principles that govern them. That complex
process - a dance between theory and experiment - is the way we know
about our universe. And it is appropriate and important to our
educational mission that the university participate in the process as
well as distill, interpret, and articulate the significance of the
work of others.
[This essay was written for the President's Seminar course, Hum
X490, "Science, Society, and the University" taught by President
Warren Baker during Winter Quarter 1997.]