Physics is a Liberal Art!

In my introductory essay for this blog, I argued that physics is a liberal art. I'd like to spend a little time making a stronger case for that argument. It seems to have become commonplace for people to equate the liberal arts to the humanities (and perhaps even to only certain disciplines within the humanities). The seven traditional liberal arts were rhetoric, grammar, logic, geometry, arithmetic, music, and astronomy. Of these it is easy to associate rhetoric and grammar with, say, a major in English (though English professors would cringe at the idea that they primarily teach rhetoric and grammar - of course, their focus is on literary criticism). Similarly, one can associate logic with philosophy and music with the fine arts in general. So there is no doubt that there is a big overlap between the traditional liberal arts and the humanities. But what about geometry, arithmetic, and astronomy? I see little choice but to equate these with the modern study of mathematics and science. Granted, a modern mathematics major will spend little time studying geometry (and hopefully none studying arithmetic, including "college algebra", which they should already know), just as English majors don't spend much time on grammar. Still, there can be no doubt that mathematics and science were very much a part of the traditional liberal arts.

Of course, one can argue that the term simply means something different now. But what did the term mean in classical and medieval times? It referred to areas of knowledge that were appropriate for free men, as opposed to more applied areas of knowledge that might be appropriate for slaves or serfs. So if we take the term to mean the same thing today (knowledge appropriate for free persons), then what should the liberal arts be in today's context? I have no easy answer for that, but I am absolutely certain that science must be a part of it. A free person in modern society must have a basic understanding of the methods of science, and at least some rudimentary scientific content knowledge. Why? Because science and its by-products pervade every aspect of modern society. Science drives our economies and has helped produce a worldview that is conducive to the modern democratic state (i.e. with the concept of universal natural laws). Those without any knowledge of science in today's world are in a dangerous situation because they can be easily controlled and manipulated by those who do understand science (and often by those who don't - just look at some political rhetoric and advertisements for pharmaceuticals). I hope no one would argue with the notion that all free persons should know how to read, write, and perform basic mathematical manipulations. I would place science right after these on the list of things a free person should know.

Now, I don't mean that every free person needs to major in science at the college level. Hardly. But a free person should possess a basic understanding of the methods of science, and some ability to distinguish science from psuedoscience and from that which is simply not science. Unfortunately, students who take science courses at the college level are often given an "introduction to the discipline" that focuses on content rather than methodology. These courses might make it seem like the purpose of studying science is solely to become a scientist. This makes the sciences seem more like applied disciplines rather than intellectual disciplines appropriate for all free persons. I think science should be taught as the liberal art that it is, rather than as vocational training. This is imperative for non-science majors who may take only one or two science courses. I am becoming increasingly convinced that we should also teach courses for science majors this way, at least at the introductory level. If more advanced courses take on a more "vocational" or "professional" feel then that may be appropriate once students have an understanding of the basic methodology of science.

One last thought on why science is a liberal art: science is a liberal art because people pursue science for the same reason that people pursue other liberal arts. Most English majors do not study English because they sense it will land them a high-paying job one day. Most Fine Arts majors don't view their education as preparation for a lucrative career as a painter, etc. But neither do physics majors study physics because it will get them a good job. Most of us study physics for the same reason that people write poetry: because it brings us joy. Doing physics is fun (at least, it is for me). Physics, and the other sciences, are very intellectually stimulating. Now perhaps this can be said of anything. I've talked with some marketing professors who make the study of marketing sound enjoyable and intellectually stimulating. But most students who study marketing probably do so because they want to get a job in that field. Physics students don't tend to think that way. Many physics majors go on to grad school, but I think this is primarily because they enjoy studying physics and they want to keep doing so. Others get jobs straight away, more often that not outside the field of physics. And that's fine, because they didn't major in physics as preparation for a specific job. They majored in physics because it challenged their mind, deepened their reasoning skills, improved their understanding of nature, and honed their mathematical ability. I believe the same is true for other liberal arts like English or History. They don't really serve to prepare you for a specific career (unless you want to teach), but they provide you with a set of intellectual skills that can enrich your life and make you capable of meeting almost any challenge.

I'd like to see the sciences receive recognition as liberal arts. I think the Humanities folks need to acknowledge science's rightful place among the liberal arts. I likewise think that quite a few scientists need to stop scoffing at the liberal arts and start recognizing that their own subject is as much a liberal art as History or Philosophy. That doesn't mean we can't continue to recognize certain boundaries between disciplines. Joyce's Ulysses is not science, any more than Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" is literature. But both should be recognized as the great intellectual achievements they are. How much poorer we would be if we had only science, or only literature, but not both!