Liberal Scientific Education: A battle for hearts and minds

Some hundred and fifty years ago a great British biologist, Thomas Henry Huxley, compared life to a game of chess in his essay on “Liberal Education”. He invited us to imagine that our survival and well-being depended on winning or losing at a game of chess. “Don’t you think that we should all consider it to be a primary duty” he asks “to learn at least the names and the moves of the pieces… and [have] a keen eye for all the means of giving and getting out of check?”

Photo by Jeswin Thomas: https://www.pexels.com/photo/person-holding-chess-piece-700971/

Huxley goes on to make a statement that I believe is nowadays even more accurate than during the Victorian times in which he wrote: “Yet it is a very plain and elementary truth, that the life, the fortune, and the happiness of every one of us […] do depend upon our knowing something of the rules of a game infinitely more difficult and complicated than chess. It is a game which has been played for untold ages, every man and woman of us being one of the two players in a game of his or her own. The chessboard is the world, the pieces are the phenomena of the universe, the rules of the game are what we call the laws of Nature.” In other words, thou shalt study science.

In Huxley’s times, general education did not include science. Being well educated, meant being fluent in classics, speaking dead languages like Greek and Latin, and being familiar with literature, history, and religion. Huxley worked hard to try to change the curriculum to include science. His arguments were beautifully and forcefully exposed, with a mixture of passion, insight and – let’s face it, this is one of the key movers and shakers in the animal world – fear. Huxley thus concludes his chess and Nature parable: “To the man who plays well, the highest stakes are paid, with that sort of overflowing generosity with which the strong shows delight in strength. And one who plays ill is checkmated—without haste, but without remorse.”

Huxley’s efforts and the efforts of several other like-minded Victorian scientists were not in vain. Today science is part of a general curriculum, much like history and religion. And the general public is certainly aware of the power that science gives us when controlling and exploiting nature. Science instils both admiration and fear. These days there is also a great deal of scepticism towards scientists not to mention the fact that science has not been able to fill the void left by the growing secularisation (at least in the West).

The battle to accept science more broadly is a battle of both hearts and minds. While most of us now may accept the rational need for science in order to tame nature and anticipate disasters (although even this is being questioned at an increasing rate), very few people believe that science can also offer a strong spiritual foundation. In this latter sense, the Victorian ideal to teach the spirit of science to everyone sadly still remains just an ideal.

Can this ever be changed? And should science be taught in such a way as to provide a basis for a sound way of life and not just a means of conquering an enemy or putting food on the table (though neither should be dismissed)? I think the answer to both is a definite “yes”. To me as a practicing scientist, the methods and attitudes I use in my scientific work are simply inseparable from those I employ in my private life. I am sure that Huxley felt this was even more so.

Three messages of science seem to me to be key in providing us with a broader framework for living a worthwhile, balanced, and fulfilled existence. The first is this: if a rigorously scrutinized piece of evidence contradicts some of our cherished beliefs, it is time to change the beliefs (and not fake the evidence). In other words, being flexible and honest is very important. Secondly, accept arguments based on evidence alone (and not based on who presents the arguments). In other words, be critical and have a healthy disrespect for authority (especially of the political kind). Thirdly, even our deepest-held convictions could be proven wrong one day. Therefore be open-minded to different views and tolerant of others. Given that most of the world’s conflicts stem from some form of an extreme philosophical or religious view, a broad acquaintance with the three scientific messages just outlined, especially if that comes early in education, would seem highly desirable.

And, of course, I am certainly not trying to take a high moral ground as a scientist. It is blatantly not true that scientists stick to these principles all the time (not even within science). We all know that it is difficult to practice what one preaches, but one ought to do as best as one can. Most things are easier said than done and good attitudes need to be nurtured, stimulated and rewarded in all aspects of society, including families, schools, universities, workplaces, and so on.

A famous Scottish philosopher, David Hume, once said that “reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions”. I very much agree with this statement. Expressed somewhat differently and more prosaically (but in line with our discussion), the heart dictates what the mind thinks. This is why the scientific battle for the hearts of people is a far more important one than that for their minds. And, most likely, it will be a far tougher one to win. But (and we in education should all be well aware of this) winning the scientific battle for the hearts of people could prove to be crucial; as far as humanity is concerned it could simply be a matter of life and death, not only spiritually but also materially.