Many apologies for the extreme delay in my wrap-up of the previous post. First, off, thank goodness! (Referring to the election of course). No, I know, this doesn’t necessarily mean anything good will happen (politics being politics), but at least the political landscape of this country now has some semblance of normalcy. One-party states are strange, ungainly things. Now, on to my promised continuation of the issue of space policy. I’d like to make the case here for the often profound importance of true scientific literacy, but do it through that peculiar lens I used last time — this whole notion of weaponizing space.
Now, in my brief (albeit insightful) time at the Belfer Center one particularly appalling speculative proposal by the Air Force stands out. In this proposal, a space-based laser to knock at missiles was seriously considered (including a description of various kill scenarios). Only one tiny problem, the power generator needed for a laser powerful enough to focus the types of energies needed at distances on the order of 100s-1000s of km was on the order of 100s of MW (if I remember correctly). No one describing this “reasonable” scenario had bothered to consider how lasers work, and how the ungainly amounts of power needed would necessitate dragging a huge power reactor into space (perhaps the heaviest thing ever launched into space in human history). Before I continue, I will also mention that the strategic scenarios considered (mostly wrt China) were ludicrous — the fact of the matter is, and continues to be, the US is the provocateur in this entire arms race. A pledge to not arm space (signed as an international treaty) would be respected by other nations — which, while certainly miltarist, are also intensely pragmatic. How do we know this? Well, for one, generals from these countries have emphatically stated this at international conferences — and it makes sense! This is the same sort of paranoid over-estimation and poor understanding of other countries that lead, in big part, to the massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons we are now stuck with.
Scientific Literacy, and Harvard
So, back to the issue of scientific literacy. A suitable background of physics should have allowed anyone with reasonable competence to recognize the outrageous nature of some of the proposals bandied about by would-be policymakers. This simply isn’t an issue of “understanding science’s place in the world”, but a question of people understanding the fundamentals. Which now allows me to gently segue into Harvard’s new “General Education” requirements. I’ll refrain from any comments on the “Reason and Faith” requirement (which has potential, if handled well) and focus my criticism on the scientific components of these requirements, or rather the lack thereof. Look, I greatly enjoyed the opportunity to take a range of literature, history, anthropology and political philosophy classes, and think, if anything, the new requirements seem to prioritize ‘current events’ over things like art and literature. However, to “frame this material in the context of social issues,” as will apparently be prevalent in ’science’ courses that count towards future distribution requirements is meaningless without ensuring that students actually understand the basics (The Crimson even got this one right).
Future policy-makers need, as demonstrated above with the outlandish Air Force proposal, to understand the basics of how the world works. Modern technology isn’t magic, it’s based on physical laws, and centuries of rigorous experimentation, advancement and the success of the scientific method. If Harvard’s graduating Gov majors can’t handle algebra, and don’t understand the bare basics of physics, chemistry and biology, but instead read some hand-wavy summaries about bioethics and only vaguely understand how nuclear energy and technology work, well that’s frankly a disaster. This isn’t whining from someone who was a science major (like I said, I really liked my humanities courses and took as many as I could fit in!) but shows a galling lack of concern among most faculty (excepting Larry Summers and some others).
General education requirements everywhere, across this country, need to place scientific literacy on par with historical, political and humanities literacy. Harvard can lead the way on this, and one can only hope erudite voices of those like Steven Pinker, can push for parity for science and math. For too long, those in power (both those in front of, and behind, the curtains) seem to only barely understand the principles and scientific reasoning that drive our now-global civilization. The weaponization of space is but one example of this alarming gap in a science-dependent society that is in larger parts, scientifically illiterate. Change is needed, and soon, lest we forfeit the gains made by science and reason, won often through much bloodshed, in the preceding century.
