STEM And Roots

STEM is an acronym. “Roots” isn't. You'll find STEM primarily in an educational context, and it refers to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

It became a concern of many American educators and of the government when they saw that our students weren't scoring as high as those of some others – students in other countries – in the scientific and mathematical fields and feared that eventually, possibly imminently, those other countries would pass us in these areas, and take the lead in development of technology. And perhaps that is true already in some areas.

On July 20, 1969, at 20:18 UTC, the United States landed men on the moon. No one else has done that in the almost 47 years since. So what? Apart from bragging rights and a proof that we were worlds[!] ahead of everyone else I can't think of anything this achievement (and the expense of realizing it) have gained us. I'm sure there are some benefits but I, and I suspect others, cannot identify them.

In the 1940s we split the atom and demonstrated what that can do. It was a great achievement and the techniques we have learned about atomic manipulation have since provided us with nuclear power, but the costs, both fiscally and in terms of human life, have been enormous. There are many who are wary of the risks of nuclear energy, and who feel that the price of progress was far too high.

And there are other scientific efforts both underway and planned, with a great deal of interest in learning about the universe in which we live. They're expensive, but they answer questions (actually much of what is studied is only of interest to scientists, and taxpayers are funding their curiosity) about the origin of everything (some would call that Creation) and maintain our reputation as leader in science and technology. We are acknowledged leader in the area of space technology, although we are afraid that we are not preparing the next generation to maintain that lead.

I have no intent to belittle all scientific advancement – new medicines and technology have certainly increased our life spans and aided many of the poor around the world – but only to raise the question of whether all of what we are doing is necessary or appropriate; and whether it is necessary to solidify our position as leader simply for its own sake. I may be an advocate of free enterprise and believe that the development of new, and marketable, devices reflects the kind of economic system that has made us great, but I also wonder if it's not time that we slowed down. I wonder if, in a society where neither law nor ethics can keep up with science, we're not moving too fast. And I'm not sure we have to be the leader.

What is above the ground is growing far faster than what is below. And, unfortunately, our society seeks to widen the gap between what our scientists can learn and what the rest of us can understand and integrate into our lives. We want future generations of Americans to continue to show our superiority to the rest of the world. The specifics are not important. Improving education in STEM subjects will allow our descendents to glow, irrespective of their areas of interest and irrespective of the value and applicability of the knowledge they gain. They'll be able to move society forward at an ever more dizzying pace than before.

But perhaps the emphasis is misplaced. Perhaps we should better understand our own values before we consider the value of undreamed of scientific advancements. Perhaps future generations will be able to evolve their own scientific advancements – ones they value rather than those we dream up for them. Are we making a mistake when we seek to educate our children to be able to reach and establish new civilizations, while not taking the time and providing the education that will help them to better understand the history and nature of the civilization in which they now live? What is the value of transferring a valueless society elsewhere?

I cannot help but think that we have to slow down. A stem without strong roots is doomed no matter how well developed that stem is. Whatever the importance of scientific education, we should also be teaching our children about literature and the arts; about their own history, government, and society – its values and its laws. And we should be teaching them that many of those values are religiously based. Admittedly there are many among us who believe (they, too, have beliefs) that science is all there is and all that is important to know, but they are a minority and a society that stops for a moment to better understand itself as it is, is preferable to one capable of moving rapidly, but not knowing where it is going.

In My Expert Opinion

(I think) I've talked about experts and expertise in the past. (To paraphrase the Latin translation [from Greek] of Hippocrates – Ars longa, memoria brevis.) I'm fairly sure that I shall discuss this issue in the future as well. But for the moment I want to focus on a single aspect of the subject – only I'm not sure what it is, so I'll just see what develops.

It all started when I was reading about art. Actually art was just one of the subjects discussed in a book I'm reading: A War For The Soul Of America – A History Of The Culture Wars by Andrew Hartman. The book covers a lot of territory, most of which I'll address some other time, but the discussion of art pointed toward a somewhat more inclusive and, in the minds of many, oppressive practice.

The discussion of art as one of the battlegrounds of the culture war (which is basically a war between liberals and conservatives played out in many arenas) centered on the photographic works of Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe (recipients of grants from the NEA – National Endowment for the Arts). Serrano's subject in “Piss Christ” was a bottle of his own urine into which a crucifix had been placed, while Mapplethorpe depicted, among other things, naked men performing acts of sadomasochistic homosexuality. Their exhibitions were viewed by liberals as manifestations of free speech, while conservatives saw them as sacrilegious and, in the minds of many, Anti-American. Liberals felt that any action taken against these exhibitions would amount to censorship. As Senator Edward Kennedy put it:

The American people strongly support public funding of the arts and reject the know-nothing censorship the right wing is trying to impose.

Conservatives thought differently. Most didn't consider their opposition to be censorship, but opposition to taxpayer support of an anti-religious agenda. In the words of Dana Rohrbacher, a Republican House Member:

Artists can do whatever they want on their own time and with their own dime.

But the comment that interested me most was that of the book's author. Hartman writes:

… liberals … maintained that the NEA, representing the national community of art experts, should be free to decide which art merited funding.

There are two important premises of this view: that the taxpayer is obligated to support artistic endeavors, and that the same taxpayer is not competent to decide what he is paying for. Neither are his representatives, Congress. It is the prerogative of “experts,” and the NEA should have unquestioned discretion when it comes to the distribution of funds.

The first assumption, that support of art is a proper government function, is straightforward, though worthy of discussion (I think it is, but there are opposing views), but the second is far more complex. To what degree should unelected “experts” have veto power over the will of the people?

As I said, it's a complex issue. And it really has nothing to do with art, which is simply a single manifestation of the problem. We have, in a little over a century, developed a “progressive” form of government in which experts have the responsibility for making decisions in a wide variety of areas. And those experts control many spheres of our lives and of national policy. We neither choose them nor know who they are. Some are political appointees, sympathetic to the ideas of those who select them and who will last as long as their sponsors. Many are bureaucrats – tenured civil servants who make the rules that are the points of reference by which we live. Congress lays out basic policies, and the experts fill in the blanks. In essence they make the laws, even though from a constitutional standpoint it is the responsibility of the legislators. They also prosecute and judge those they consider violators of their prescriptions.

They're the “experts.” Most of them are people just like us, but they make the rules we have to follow. That's so because either they're smart enough to pass the civil service exam (giving them all but lifetime tenure), or they have been chosen for their loyalty by the politicians in office (to the winner belong the spoils) and are subject to dismissal without notice, by whoever made the appointment, or by a subsequent administration. Political allegiance is more important than expertise. However there's a third group – the real experts. Even they, though, are sometimes chosen only in part because of their knowledge, but also because of their political philosophy. Their scientific judgments are sometimes swayed by dogma.

Perhaps the most prominent group of experts are the Justices of the Supreme Court. They've been acting as experts for nearly the entire duration of our existence as a country. They have arrogated to themselves the role of determiners of the law, and we have not objected. There may even be Constitutional support for that position. In any event it is what has developed and we've become accustomed to live by their decisions, whether or not we agree with them.

But there are numerous such areas, and education is just one. (Others include the IRS, OSHA, the EEOC, the FDA and many more.) People we don't know, and who don't know us, can decide that we need to abide by a common core curriculum, and they can devise its contents. A school board can determine what schools to fund, and who our children's teachers will be (and the teachers can inject their own political philosophies). Perhaps we can choose our own school board and perhaps we can decide whether or not we accept the common core, but those in authority can choose to withhold funds from our community if they don't like our decision, or, like the courts, they can simply declare that decision null. We, however, cannot withhold tax money if we disagree with theirs. Indeed, we're required to pay income and property taxes even if we don't agree with, or require all the services offered. And we have to pay school taxes even if we don't have children, or have removed ours from the public schools – often because we don't agree with the decisions of the experts. But we can't alter their decisions. Our best option is to try to defeat them in the next election. Or to defeat the politicians who appointed them. Meanwhile they're in charge.

Of course we all select experts to advise us of preferred actions. We choose our doctors, lawyers, tax advisors, clothing designers, and a host of others who are better equipped to make technical decisions than we. But we choose them, and we can fire them on the spot if we're not satisfied with their recommendations or outcomes – or even if we are. And their judgments take our wishes into consideration. In addition, whether they're personal trainers, “experts” in parenting, or marriage counselors, we're free to ignore their advice and find other opinions more to our liking. Sadly, the same option is not available when government experts direct us.

I don't know enough about the intricacies of our government to formulate a solution to the problem. We ceased to follow the Constitution a long time ago and have accepted a system that is often not responsive to our wishes. Perhaps there's no going back – perhaps the experts cannot be dislodged from their positions of power – but that's not for me to say. I'd prefer to believe there are those familiar with the system and how to change it who can return choice and input to the taxpayers. They, too, are experts, however, and somehow or other we'll have to keep a tight rein on them.

Arts And Science

“[Nobel Prize winner Joshua] Lederberg lets us know that in this sea of democratic relativism natural science stands out like Gibraltar. All the rest is a matter of taste.” Allan Bloom in “The Closing of the American Mind,” Simon and Schuster, 1987.

It doesn't seem to matter what the subject is, there's no debating the almost universally held view that the best way to the proper conclusion – the way to learn what is most important about some particular subject – is by the use of scientific principles; the path to Truth is via Science. (See also essay named “Emphasis” on September 23.)

As a people we have discovered the value of this approach, and we view with approval governmental actions that preferentially support education of mathematics and science over the needs of other disciplines. And sports and nutrition programs, shown scientifically to benefit us all, have also been assisted politically. Our goal is “a sound mind in a sound body.” It became obvious, moreover, that the only way that our country could stay ahead of the rest of the world, or at least keep up, was by maintaining a superiority in scientific achievements. If this meant some loss to the “Arts,” so be it. The superiority of science, and our need for its blessings, dictated an emphasis on it. The important questions will only be answered through science and mathematics. For example, “Multivariate modeling of uncharacteristic harmonics using archimedean copulas,” which was published in 2010 in “Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power Systems,” discusses harmonics, a discovery of the third century BCE scientist, Archimedes.

I won't bore you with any mathematical details, but it must be noted, as is clear from the title, that the fine points of harmonics, one of the primary features of music, were initially demonstrated by a scientist. It is also of interest that much of “modern” music has been described as mathematical. I don't know if that's meant as a compliment or an insult, but it's apparent that the distinctions between art and science are not always clear. Sometimes art and science overlap. A beautiful sunset may move a physicist who can explain its technological aspects, but not its effect on him. Although these examples don't prove the point, however, I doubt that we are placing the emphasis where it belongs when we laud the superiority of natural science. And that's what we do.

When I was in medical school I was told (by a non-surgeon of course) that you could teach a monkey to operate. What was critical, however, was an understanding of why he would do so. What is also bandied about by scientists is that another monkey, with the help of other members of his species and an adequate amount of time, could write the works of Shakespeare. It was all a matter of chance and probability. It's a clever rhetorical point, but that's all it is. The statistical likelihood of that happening must be less than of another Universe coming into existence through scientific principles. It's nil. And even if it were possible, the monkeys would lack any understanding of what they were doing. They would just be doing. It would be a mechanical exercise which, even if it succeeded, would have no meaning.

Though not as well paid, scientists are a lot like plumbers or electricians. And in a way they're like the operating monkey. Their goal is to do – not really to understand anything beyond their craft. It my be to extend our knowledge of the Universe in which we live, and it may require a great deal of intelligence and effort, but in many ways it is also a mechanical exercise. It is not my wish to denigrate science, but the questions that scientists address are “what” and “how.” At least journalists add “who,” “when,” and “where” to the list to more fully describe their subjects of interest.

But those questions, important as they may be, have no fundamental meaning if we don't know “why.” And that is the realm of the Arts and the Humanities rather than the Sciences. And the domain of religion. Science doesn't deal in values. (In that way it's valueless.) Astrophysicists may be able to tell me when the sun will burn out, but – and it doesn't embarrass me to say so – I don't care. In all likelihood I won't be around to see it.

But I'm here now. And I don't know why. And there are others around. Who they are (philosophically), how I understand them, and how I interact with them are of far greater concern to me than what some mathematical formula or scientific theory will disclose. And those others. How they interact with their fellows could have a far greater impact on the lives of my children and grandchildren than any scientific hypothesis. I'm far more fearful of a modern military conflict than of a future astronomical cataclysm.

There is no foolproof solution to the problem. There are too many fools and scoundrels around. And there are too many whose knowledge doesn't extend beyond their own needs. But it is reasonable to assume that the more fully that people have been educated to the way others think, to their values, and to the conditions that make life “livable,” the fewer and the less violent our future conflicts will be. And that is the purview of the humanities and the arts. “Music hath charms …” but first we have to hear and understand the music.

We must, in addition, understand each other. And ourselves, for without insight we lack any form of sight, and are unable to appreciate the needs of everyone else. We need to learn what science cannot tell us – what it cannot measure. History, literature, art, and all those other “irrelevant” disciplines reflect wisdom, and they are far more important in the long run – and, even more so, in the short-run – than mathematics and science. That is what we should emphasize in the education we provide for our young. “Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.” – Immanuel Kant. “Choose life.” – Deuteronomy, 30:19.

If there must be scientists then, and if they require projects to occupy their minds, we would all benefit if they would turn their attention to determining why some people don't respond to the arts and the humanities, and to find a cure for this affliction. Gibraltar's flowers are of greater significance than its rock. And “democratic relevance” must give way to human understanding.

Next episode: “Words Fail Us” – And vice versa.

Foundations For Charity

                                                                                   

Let me return to the issue of tax money as the source of funding of governmental programs which many would consider to be charity. Many contend that the decision to give charity should be their own – not forced on them by zealous public officials.

As far as I'm concerned, there's a lot to be said for their contention.ⁱ On the other hand, however, it is difficult to justify a society that leaves the hungry to starve, the homeless to live on the street, the naked to remain unclothed, or the sick to suffer and die without treatment. In all candor, we cannot disregard the needy. There's a lot to be said for that position as well, so some “middle ground” must be found that will allow us to address the problems without penalizing taxpayers as much as we are doing now. But first we have to clarify what the problems are that we have to solve.

There are several questions that come to mind immediately:

1. There are poor and needy around the world. If our society is obligated to care for the needy, whom should we help?
2. What kind of help should we offer?
3. What is the level of help we should provide?
4. Who should decide the nature and extent of the assistance?
5. Who should be helped and to what level of aid?
6. Who should make these decisions?
7. What, if any, is the obligation to society of those helped?

If there is to be any equity in the continuation of an entitlement system supported by taxpayers, these questions must be answered. But there are other sources of funding and there are different kinds of aid that can be provided; and there are different requirements that can be imposed on the recipients. Let me give some examples to clarify these thoughts. Not all of these examples are of what most people consider entitlements,ⁱⁱ but the result is that certain individuals and groups are having their needs and wishesⁱⁱⁱ met at the expense of all taxpayers.

In terms of examples (and I'll suggest only one – or at most, two – for each category) there are, first of all, some constitutionally mandated functions of government, like defense and the payment of debts, that are all of our responsibility. But of those that fall into the category of “general Welfare,” as decided after the Constitution was written, there are certain needs that can be considered basic, and sometimes are life-saving. An example of that is food. To use a trite expression, we can't live without it. Second are the important, but not life-saving, needs of society, like education. What constitutes education, however, is not defined.^iv And third are the “niceties,” like art, that don't provide life but make it more pleasant. And all of these, at least to some degree, are provided by tax money.

But there are other ways to fund such projects, in large part related to those who require those services. Some examples of this are also in order. Certainly all taxpayers are obligated to share in the cost of defense.^v And the taxpayers responsible for these services pay both Federal (Army, Navy, etc.) and State (Militia, Police) taxes. Private support for such security is not anticipated, although commercial security services are sometimes chosen in addition, by some firms, and even by some individuals.

Of the needs that have been assumed following the writing of the Constitution, there is, currently, a mix of sources to provide funding. Local, State, and Federal governments help provide food for those needing it, but so do individuals, foundations, and other institutions, like charities and religious institutions. So, too, is there mixed support for “luxury” services, like museums and concert halls, however a larger percentage comes from private sources and less from the government.^vi There are many who believe that the cost of these luxuries should be entirely private, coming from “The Patrons of the Arts,” and from those who attend specific programs.^vii Their view is that those who seek these extravagances should be prepared to pay for them.^viii Others, however, believe that the arts are so important to society as a whole that the government is responsible for supporting it – and that includes non-commercial “public” broadcasting stations, and music and arts programs in the public schools.

Somewhere between the life and death needs, and the luxuries, are infrastructure and services that many, but not all, of our population needs or wants, but the needs vary very much from individual to individual. For example, everyone may wish carrots that are trucked in over our highways, but they may not drive or ever use the roads themselves. In addition, there are many like me who pay school taxes but never send their children to public schools; and there are those who pay “list price” for higher education with no assistance from scholarships or government subsidized loans. It is often difficult to determine why some citizens should pay the costs so that others can benefit; why they should give mandatory charity mediated by Congress and the IRS.

I'm conscious of the fact that I've intertwined various issues that are sometimes connected and sometimes not. Among them are taxes, entitlements, charity, programs, subsidies and the like. And I know that the consequences of a program may be other than what was intended. I also know that the different recipients of the benefits^ix have a variety of expectations.

Consequently there is no simple solution to the problem. And there is no single solution either. The different kinds of costs require different kinds of funding. And the last question raised above^x – regarding the responsibility of the recipients of society's charity – is an important one to consider as we work toward resolution of some of the inequities. I'll suggest some paths in the next essay^xi that may help lead us to an answer while lowering the amount we pay as taxpayers to provide the services we want.

Next episode: “You Pay For What You Get” – Or for what someone else gets.

i      Some of it can be found in the essay dated October 24, 2010: “Giving And Receiving.”

 

ii     If it's something you demand be there when you need it, either free or at a reduced price, it's an entitlement. It may be clean water, government inspection of food and drugs, public education, the GI Bill of Rights, or clean streets, but it's an entitlement – something to which you're entitled. Your expectation may be justified or not, and that judgment will be based on each giver's and recipient's point of view, but it's something you expect and something to which you feel entitled.

 

iii    See: com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ei=5043&partner=EXCITE

 

iv    Does it include classes no larger than 25 students each? How about football, debating team, and French Club? Should there be separate classes for “special” students? Or advanced classes for the gifted? If education is a basic human need that the government should support, what about features that add costs?

 

v      Perhaps better management is in order (no overpriced toilet seats for the Pentagon) but the function itself isn't in issue, nor is the question of funding.

 

vi     Foundations and other private sources are among the most important of the providers for educational institutions, museums, medical research, and concert halls and other music venues. Their contributions supply significant aid for their causes. And their contributions are voluntary. Indeed, whether they are individuals or institutions giving tens of millions of dollars or whether they are “working stiffs” who help out in their church's soup kitchen, voluntary donors play an important part in humanizing our mechanical society.

 

vii    On television it's called “pay per view.”

 

viii   As they do for a sports event.

 

ix     That includes rich corporations, industries, organizations, and individuals for whom special provisions are surreptitiously slipped into legislation designed to help others

 

x       Number 7.

 

xi      And, I hope, the last (though I'm not yet sure – I may need two more). I'm tiring of the subject, and there are others about which I'd like to write.