As a non-natural science or mathematics major, I find a
problem with Kagan’s assertion that, within a modern liberal arts education,
only those majoring in the natural sciences or mathematics come to appreciate
learning and “knowledge as a good in themselves.”
His point makes sense—a lot
of the learning that goes on, especially in upper levels of science and
post-graduation, is searching for more knowledge within the field, through
experiments and observational studies. But I do not think that science is the
only field that inherently lends itself to the appreciation of learning and
knowledge.
Kagan
speaks of the “failure” of the scientific method to lend itself to other
fields. In the paragraph prior, he problematizes the scientific method because
it is usually the only method used
within the natural sciences to teach. However, then he critiques the social
sciences for not being able to implement the scientific method—that seems a
little contradictory to me. As a major within the field of “social science,” I
have personally come to appreciate learning for the sake of learning, not for a
specific outcome or skill necessarily. While he claims that the social sciences
have “seen each generation undermine the beliefs of its predecessors rather
than building on or refining them,” I must disagree. He is operating from a
natural science viewpoint here, that there is an ultimate truth that can be
built off of. I don’t see that as the case within social science. While
studying varying cultures, opinions, belief systems, and history, it is
necessary to alter our methods in order to best appreciate the subject(s) of
our study.
In
contrast with some of Kagan’s beliefs, the social sciences have done more to
open my mind to new ideas, teach me to appreciate knowledge, other cultures,
and different ways of thinking than the natural sciences, locked into the
scientific method, could have done. 
No comments:
Post a Comment