Primality of Science Education

Of everything taught about "the world", only one world remains constant -- the natural world. It should be inferred that of all subjects taught in class and in one's culture, most can and will change. They should change, such is progress and "evolution". Most, not all. An understanding of the natural world is beyond reproach. Its necessity and importance is not on par with other fields such as economics, politics, taboos, and morals of an age. Scientific education is singular in relevance to prosperity on individual as well as collective levels.

Science education gives insight into the interplay of logic and observation in discovering your surroundings. Yes, this may seem obvious, but do not underestimate how unique this interplay is. Consider any other field of study besides the hard sciences. It functions on that same rule. In fact to even be considered a "field of study", the subject at hand must be somehow privy to observation and submit to rational theories regarding experimental (or observational) results. This won't be evident in studies of politics or sociology or history. All of the above are tainted with bias. Personal experience may reflect a particular case study. Emotions creep in. It all crumbles.

Case in point: the abortion debate. There is no progress on it. It occurs throughout liberal and conservative circles. Rehashing point after point, reason after reason in an attempt to arrive at "the truth" and bring forth a definitive answer. But they can't. They won't. Not for lack of intellect, but for lack of rigor. For lack of quantification regarding the relative merits of arguments and counterarguments. No objective, universal measure of "goodness" or "merit" exists. In political science, every election is a referendum of which general philosophy of government and social conduct is in vogue for the time being. Even among such "soft science" circles, attempts at weeding out answers or optimal solutions often invoke numerical statistics regarding economics, unemployment, crime, etc. It is in such references to numbers that any escape from bias is to be found. Alas, it is too transient, the target audience usually too obtuse to mathematical logic, the judges too invested on a professional and perhaps personal and emotional level to arrive at the kind of detached objectivity afforded to scientific theory and the experimentation that validates or dooms it. Without such explicit objectivity weaving through the very soul of inquiry, a "search for answers" will go nowhere fast. Only scientific education, as summarized by interplay of mathematical theory and controlled experiment, affords one the insight into what a truly objective mindset is. It is trivial to point this out, but for the sake of clarity one can claim that only such an objective mindset will arrive at answers and solutions.

The nature of scientific inquiry renders null all emotions, all "unsolvable conflicts" that so often mire "soft science" topics. Reasonable theories are developed so that nature can be understood. And yes there is the implicit assumption that the faculty of thought we call "reason" and "logic" is useful in understanding the natural world - in short, we assume that the natural world can be understood, and perhaps without limit. Spirituality aside, this natural world does not care if you manipulate it to the effect of prolonging life, utilizing TiVo, raining inferno on innocents or righteously fight back threats of repression, despotism, even extermination. Trajectories and chemical reactions care not for life, nor death, nor sentiment. The method of scientific inquiry is immaculately cold and uncaring for our human whims, impulses, emotions, needs, desires, and so forth. Ego takes a subtle beating when it first dawns on a student that not everything revolves around any of us. In the words of Carl Sagan, "on the cosmic scale, humans are... inconsequential".

Consider the results. Too many ideologies and religions have criss-crossed the planet. Every shaman, every prayer, every meditation, guru, prophet, and savior have all purported to show some sort of physical correlation to their spirituality. Not to claim that the spiritual realm is dead, but consider the hackneyed clash of science versus religion. Barring complex interpretations, science wins. Just in terms of popular credibility and approval? Yes, but also in terms of what passes for "proof" among the various faiths out there. Research any religion out there, invariably it will be discovered that certain verses of the holy book or sayings of some central figure will be "scientific facts". Such things are pillars of credibility in an age ruled by reason.

However, more than debate fodder is at stake. A populace well versed in science will be one that understands not only interplays of logic and observation in the natural world, but one that will thrive culturally. Cultivating the healthy skepticism (not to be confused with nihilism) and applying it to other facets of society, politics, economy; all that will yield efficiency in production. Proclivity in the arts. Pride and purpose of a people, of their accomplishments and possibilities. All of the above are hallmarks of great civilizations, past and present. It could be argued that the above claims need no proof, though in the spirit of rigor this obviously falls short. But who would dispute said claims? What culture or empire enjoyed progress or humanity without the energy infused by intellectual rigor and unabashed inquiry? Where can one find an instance of stagnation being a point of pride among a people? Counterarguments for the alleged barbarity of such-and-such a tribe are countered most, and most effectively, by pointing out their scientific and technological achievement. Architecture, creed, music, art - these things are subjective, personal, "fuzzy", complex, and can hardly be expected to find a judge that is not influenced in some manner by their perception of what is "beautiful" or "good" or "right". However, all concur on the weight of scientific/technological prowess.

The spirit of inquiry that is the lifeblood of science cannot be forced. It cannot, and does not, bend to the whims of democracy, of patriotism, or a cause or a religion. One could point out when any faith started. When such-and-such philosophy became dominant in a domain of time and space. By contrast, the beginnings of a "scientific" mindset, however crude by today's standards, beat them all. Perhaps before our ancestors dared to venture into the savanna, they sat among the trees or caves, happened to look up by accident... And the first sparks of "what is that?" fired through their souls. Who can lay claim to that? To which individual, culture, or creed does such a question belong? Who claims copyright of inquiry? None. To ask is perhaps the most natural impulse there is.

Seeking answers with some method is the essence of science. Without this foundation built, without this question focused and answered methodically, answers will shoot up like weeds, and the simile extends to their effects. Cults claiming to have the answers will fill the void. The biggest and most easily digested cults will gain the halo of infallibility. Fanaticism follows as "solutions" to the world are linked with emotion. Nothing good ensues until the damage of fanatic adherence is undone, usually through a war that is fatal enough to prove the fallacy of answers provided by such-and-such peddlers of dogma. Then we're back at square one.

To break this cycle of misery, no brute strength will suffice. No police state, no punishments, no manifestos or holy books will do. Only the embrace of inquiry for its own sake; that which we call "science", and all that comes with it. Everything else is detail.