Share
I once read an opinion piece in my undergraduate institution's newspaper that spoke of the unsettling fact that education, specifically of the liberal arts variety, can confuse as much as it can clarify.
Given the popular criticism that the academy receives, I thought this a brave admission; after all, if you want to defend a convention as seemingly vulnerable as a liberal arts education, pointing out its ability to discombobulate, rather than elucidate, seems a poor strategy. Nevertheless, I think that there's a great deal of truth to this confession of confusion and it remains as unsettling for me now as when I first had this unmooring experience some years ago.
This past semester, I found myself feeling that uncertainty again when I took a class on the philosophy of biology, focusing on evolutionary theory. While I have always had an affinity for the natural sciences, biology is an exception. I always enjoyed the law-like aspects of physics and chemistry and their ultimate connection to mathematics, and this connection seemed much less strong in the case of biology. And it seemed to involve a lot of rote learning of the names of biological phenomena. So, it's safe to say, my interest here was primarily in evolutionary theory as a divisive cultural talisman rather than as an application of biological science.
Moreover, I expected the class to reinforce my existing beliefs on the topic: that is, to demonstrate why evolutionary theory is categorically superior to any of its, so-called, competitors. I'm still not sure what I managed to take away from the class, and I mean this in the sense of having my preconceptions so thoroughly challenged that they're yet to resolidify, not that I'm struggling to locate anything of value in the syllabus, but I do know that I'm certainly now more confused with respect to my perspective than I was before.
It may surprise you to discover that Tech has a philosophy department (given the strong engineering and science focus here it has surprised some people I have told) but it may surprise you less to learn that the department is renowned in the philosophy of science; it was a great place to be exposed to this discussion. But what I discovered about the nature of evolutionary theory did not accord exactly with my prejudices. I learned, through my attempts to make objections to creationist theories, or to their intellectual successor: intelligent design, that it was surprisingly difficult to cogently make the case - the case I had entered the class thinking was open and shut.
Leave a comment 4 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
What?
Reply to this Top
Man, these paragraphs need to be broken up...
Reply to this Top
Original and refreshing - I like the example of evolutionary theory. I think that as I've progressed in my education, I've become more aware of what I don't know and am less quick to think of things in black and white. Maybe that is wisdom in itself!
Reply to this Top
I know that this isn't the fundamental point of this column, but it is certainly refreshing to read a column in a left-leaning paper (especially at a university!) which acknowledges that there exist flaws in evolutionary theory. The whole point of the liberal arts education, as I see it, is to ensure that scientific developments are appropriately understood in a more broadly cultural context. For instance, the mathematical laws of physics are immutable - but what makes those laws relevant in the first place? It is, I think, the cultural significance we place on them - does the Earth revolve around the sun or vice versa? Facts without context are just facts, and the liberal arts are supposed to teach us how to interpret and contextualize those facts. Also, I'm with Gabe - the formatting is WEAK.
Reply to this Top