It probably hasn’t escaped you that we are living in strange times.
On the one hand, our culture is in awe of the achievements of the sciences as they reveal more and more detailed information about the way galaxies were created, how the brain is put together and how genes work. On the other hand, an increasingly large number of people are spending their time and money trying to find spiritual solace in ancient and seemingly discredited beliefs based on astrology, reincarnation and a variety of syncretistic cults from every corner of the world. The Heaven’s Gate sect was not so much an aberration as an extreme form of that scientific naivete, compounded by misplaced trust and ignorance, endemic in society.
We can further see the difficulty some people have understanding the role of science in the way they respond to information reported at the global-warming conference Vice President Al Gore attended last week in Japan. So many different points of view were presented, each supported with its own set of evidence–in one ear we hear that greenhouse gases are causing irreparable harm; in the other we’re told that studies leave doubt that the Earth’s temperature has risen significantly in recent years.
It is hard for people to know what course they should support, particularly when science is being discussed in the context of politics and economics.
These are troubling issues for Americans. The U.S. is a leader in science and technology, yet belief in the foundations of science is not as solid as one might think.
For instance, surveys indicate that less than half of the U.S. population believes in the theory of evolution, whereas in every other technologically advanced society evolution is almost universally accepted.
While the scientific community ranks near the top of institutions in which people place confidence, less than a quarter of a recent survey’s respondents think science will solve social problems, according to figures from the National Opinion Research Center of the U. of C.
What are the reasons for this schizoid relationship we have with science, the brightest jewel in the crown of our civilization?
My studies of teenagers and adults suggest that this relationship stems in part from the way mathematics and science are taught in the schools and from the way scientific institutions are operated.
By the time they are in high school, a majority of students feels that the “hard” sciences (and mathematics as well) are made up of a rocklike set of rules that they must learn to advance academically, but which have little to do with their feelings and experiences. Whereas most teenagers can relate to literature or history, and especially to music and the arts, few of them find in the sciences a means for expressing their feelings.
As a result, even talented science students report feeling sad and passive when they study scientific subjects but happy and active when they take classes in art and music, where they feel they can express themselves and contribute to an evolving enterprise.
The explanation for this cannot be that the subject matter of the sciences is alienating, because adult scientists love their work at least as much as artists love to paint. Rather, the problem probably is that we package science for young people in a way that seems remote from their interests and concerns.
Science also is perceived to be at odds with other things we value in our lives. It often is seen as an enemy of religion and is at best neutral to family or patriotic values or to aesthetic experiences. This again is more a problem in presenting and communicating science than a problem that is inherent in its practice. Many scientists hold deep spiritual beliefs, cherish their families and love the arts.
Yet gifted adolescents often worry that if they pursue a scientific career, they will have to lead sterile, mechanical lives–and so some opt for what they consider more humanistic professions.
Another reason many young people become alienated from science is that, rightly or wrongly, science is perceived as arrogant in both believing in its supremacy and in being unwilling to monitor, evaluate and influence the results of its applications. Many people think that as long as politicians or the market will buy it, scientists and engineers will make it–regardless of long-term consequences for the rest of society.
The prospects of human cloning, for example, raised society’s fears to the extent that President Clinton in March banned federally funded attempts to duplicate humans. At the time, Clinton said that “science often moves faster than our ability to understand its implications.”
The reality is that, even without Clinton’s directive, most scientists planned to refrain voluntarily from such experiments.
Whether they are real or perceived, gaps between the scientific approach as currently practiced and some of the most profound human experiences could produce a gradual alienation of the populace from science.
Some of the problem is only a matter of the rather arid way young people are exposed to scientific subjects. Most of the excitement, the curiosity, the deep commitment that are involved in scientific discoveries are edited from the teaching of science. Yet without that emotional content, the facts themselves remain dry and uninteresting.
The scientific community and educators must act to clear up misconceptions.
In turn, as citizens of this era, we must be knowledgeable about what science is discovering and be willing to take the time to appreciate and evaluate the calls for action that scientists are raising at events such as the global-warming conference–events that will shape our national and even the international agenda for years to come.
———-
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s recent studies were published in the books “Talented Teenagers” and “Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention.” Famed for his “flow” theory of optimal experience, Csikszentmihalyi also is co-director of a Sloan Foundation project that has followed the career decisions of more than 1,000 high school students.
