page 13

A man walks alone...

A Man walks alone in space, and with his first hesitant steps the human race moves into an important new phase of its evolution. For "spaceman" is psychologically an essentially different sort of man.

He has moved through space as the Earth itself does; he has viewed Earth from space; and for him the wider universe of many planets and suns has become a sphere for practical activity. His mental outlook is transformed from one based on experiences confined to the surface of a planet to one embracing a strange new environment without horizon.

This transition is as important psychologically as the ancient transition from sea-dwelling to land-dwelling was important biologicaly. Most of humanity are now unprepared for the change. They are not ready to bring the previously untouchable sky into their sphere of practical concern.

Science and its technological applications have made possible man's entry into the last unknown environment. But most men, even in technologically advanced countries, are still largely ignorant of the methods and attitudes of the scientists.

Among the intellectuals there are many who misunderstand science. An apparent split between study of the physical sciences and study of the humanities — art, literature, language, history — has developed.

C. P. Snow characterised the split in 1959 as the development of two distinct cultures within Western society. He feared that lack of understanding of science could lead to a failure by society to apply some of the benefits of scientific research.

A look at the position of scientists in relation to the New Zealand community would certainly seem to substantiate much of Snow's fear. At the February Science Congress in Auckland the Minister of Science, Mr. Talboys, told a symposium on science and education that there appeared to be a climate in New Zealand which made communication between scientist and layman difficult. There was, he said, a slowness to adopt the results of scientific research for practical purposes.

Agricultural and marine scientists at the congress expressed concern at the lack of sufficient financial support for research of direct benefit to the nation's prosperity. Victoria's Professor C. J. Adcock wrote in a February letter to the Dominion that New Zealand could not live "on the crumbs of other countries' research" and must train its own scientists.

Popular failure to understand the significance of scientific methods is well illustrated by the decisive rejection of the fluoridation of water supplies in referendums. Let the Hastings experiment produced clearcut scientific evidence of the benefits of fluoridation.

It may be argued that popular lack of understanding of scientists is not the same thing as suspicion of science by literary intellectuals, who fear the submergence of what they conceive to be the humanistic attitude in a culturally oppressive wave of cold, mathematical, amoral, scientific thought. Yet it seems that these attitudes are merely different aspects of the same thing —misunderstanding of science by those without scientific training.

How can an adequate synthesis of scientific and non-scientific attitudes of our society be achieved so that a majority of people have an adequate understanding of their culture? Solutions to the problem are being widely discussed in New Zealand at present.

In the 1964 Hudson Lecture given to the Wellington Branch of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Dr. Ernest Beaglehole, head of Victoria's Psychology Department, took up a suggestion of Snow's as a solution. Snow last year, taking another look at the "two cultures," decided that a "third culture" — comprising the behavioural or social sciences (sociology, anthropology, political science, psychology, medicine)— might provide a bridge between them.

Said Dr. Beaglehole: "This third culture — both scientific and humanist in goal, problem and technique—seems to be eminently suited to overcome the disadvantages Snow has foreseen in that dichotomous split of our contemporary interests and technique which could nullify plans for the amelioration of the human condition."

The idea of a third party mediating between two other parties highlights, however, limitations of the "two cultures" concept. The concept is useful for emphasising the widespread misunderstanding of science which exists, but if it is taken so literally that a "third culture" is introduced as a bridge, the resulting picture of modern society becomes misleading.

Are the two cultures so sharply delineated that they need a bridge between them? There is ample evidence that many scientists appreciate the importance of the humanities, and many "humanists" appreciate and understand science.

Julian Huxley is an eminent example of a well-known scientist who is anything but a narrow specialist, and who takes a deep interest in humanistic problems.

In the correspondence column of February's "Scientific American" we find a scientist (a molecular biologist) using a poem of Edmund Spenser's and a photograph of a contemporary sculpture ("Dancer") in an argument about the form of the myoglobin molecule.

One of the best introductions to astronomy at college level written in recent years is by the American woman astronomer Cecilia Payne Gaposchkin. She says in her preface: "I have been at pains to point out associations with the fields of language, literature, and history." And she commences each section of the book with a literary quotation.

Herbert Butterfield, Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, took a courageous step in 1949 with his venture into medieval science published as "The Origins or Modern Science." Arthur Koestler is a good example of an intellectual combining a comprehensive understanding of both science and the humanities.

Synthesis is required rather than a "bridge". A sensible suggestion which could lead to this was made on March 21 to Victoria's Catholic Students' Guild by Dr. W. B. Sutch. He said New Zealand secondary school education must be broadened to include subjects like the new mathematics, art and aesthetics before specialisation was permitted.

At the Science Congress Mr. Talboys suggested a re-designing of the education syllabus to provide a wider understanding of the scientific approach.

Integration of arts and science courses at university level is an obvious step to take. For example, if all courses were to include one-third study of science subjects, one-third of the humanities, and one-third specialised study in either one of the sciences or the humanities, then all students would have two-thirds common ground as well as a specialised knowledge of one subject.

A combination of these proposals would go far towards achieving a synthesis which would render any "bridge" unnecessary. The urgency of evolving such a synthesis is dramatised by the events of the space age. For the spectacular venture into space is forcing on to a rather startled mankind some psychological surgery.

The tremendous broadening of mental horizons that is resulting is well illustrated by the comment of Leonov, first man to move alone in space: "I felt only the sense of the infinite expanses and depth of the universe."