Have we discussed C.P. Snow book and thoughts "The Two Cultures" [see] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures) and the book from library. His thoughts are apt to discuss in sciforums.

I received an email...excerpts:

"The split between the technical and the nontechnical communities is not a new phenomenon....Since C.P. Snows time (1952) the divide Snow indicated has become even more dramatic than he foresaw. As the pace of technological advance has accelerated, consumers understanding of the technology has lost ground."

"There is a push for the engineering students to study "Humanities'...but the dumbing down of education in schools causing the nontech public fall farther behind....Why we the tech community accept the premise that it is we who need to learn more about the nontechnical side, rather than the nontech public learning technology?"

Have you seen the students these days? If they can write and spell, its a miracle. Poor management in school programs, competition for limited funds, short cuts, corporate control of research- all this has led to crises in education, abuse of students and poor output of basic research and critical thinking skills.

Have you seen the students these days?
You must be speaking of liberal arts students. :)

Back to the OP: I do think we truly have become two cultures. The nontechnical community is seemingly discouraged from delving into any aspect of science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. Our colleges have courses titled "Physics for Poets" that coddle the non-technically minded. Heaven forbid teaching one single equation in such a course. On the other hand, students of science and related subjects are required to take courses in the humanities. They cannot choose to take "Poetry for Physicists" either. They have to take the same liberal arts classes that liberal arts majors take.

Compare the results from googling for the exact phrases "Physics for Poets" (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Physics+for+Poets%22) and "Poetry for Physicists" (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Poetry+for+Physicists%22). In the first search I get 7580 hits, most of them either for a course specifically labeled "Physics for Poets" or diatribes against such courses. Do poets think about physics at all?

Now the other exact phrase, "Poetry for Physcists". Of 12,200 hits, I see no dumbed-down courses on poetry specifically for illiterate physicists. What I find instead are physicists writing poetry, physicists talking about poetry, and physicists holding workshops on poetry. Physicists, like other technically minded people, see the values offered by both cultures.

While there are many scientists who see value in the "liberal arts", I personally know many who know next to nothing about politics, art or history, and don't see that as any kind of problem. What they don't know, they consider probably isn't worth knowing about those things.

One thing that I am finding more and more annoying is the ready dismissal of postmodernism by scientists of all persuasions. Almost invariably, the scientists doing that have no real understanding of what postmodernism is. In fact, even their questioning of the idea of the cultural basis of knowledge ironically owes a debt to postmodernism.

While there are many scientists who see value in the "liberal arts", I personally know many who know next to nothing about politics, art or history, and don't see that as any kind of problem. What they don't know, they consider probably isn't worth knowing about those things.

One thing that I am finding more and more annoying is the ready dismissal of postmodernism by scientists of all persuasions. Almost invariably, the scientists doing that have no real understanding of what postmodernism is. In fact, even their questioning of the idea of the cultural basis of knowledge ironically owes a debt to postmodernism.

Are you a relativist, James? :)

What kind of relativist, SAM?

Physicists, like other technically minded people, see the values offered by both cultures.
Some physicists see the value in poetry. Remember to be a physicist you have to have had quite a bit of higher education, so of course some of them have broader interests than others and can aim at these interests learning skills from other areas. But the tech community is becoming divorced from humanism and this can be seen and monitored as they figure out ways to replace us with 'better' organisms, better brain chemicals, better genes, artificial intelligence, better ecosystems made up of artificially constructed organisms. Their logic will lead us to hell. But 'we' won't be we anymore and after the transition, the odd, highly skilled, distorted creatures they have made will perhaps sense that something is wrong, but damned if they will have the ability to appreciate the humanities and arts. they will probably be highly resistant to pesticides, some will be able to thrive in low gravity, most will have very little emotional activity or needs. I think the people who are being abducted by aliens are actually seeing future humans. Grey little geniuses with no sympathy.

Have you seen the students these days? If they can write and spell, its a miracle. Poor management in school programs, competition for limited funds, short cuts, corporate control of research- all this has led to crises in education, abuse of students and poor output of basic research and critical thinking skills.

I know that was an intentional exaggeration, but it seems like a cliche to me.

I don't know what the larger trends are, but in cases where people had a decently funded, modern school, I think that students have improved. For one thing, they have modern advantages of advances in science, easily accessible information, among other things.

Almost every one of past generations tells me that, in general, classes are now harder (in terms of exams, but perhaps not harder overall because of some advantages that make learning easier these days) and more advanced.

I also certainly see a lot more people interested in science. It's becoming "cool", if it hasn't already.

I wish I could contribute more objective reasoning, but I have little hard data on me. I was thinking of looking up trends in things like American Chemical Society national tests (or ASM tests, etc), but that is not useful given that the tests have changed a great deal over time, and don't go very far back in time, afaik. I do know that IQ has steadily gone up in the last half century. What I read claimed that if you score 100 on a modern test, it would of been ~140+ in tests from the '50s... for what it's worth...

You must be speaking of liberal arts students. :)


:D