Two cultures, one human society: on the third culture/ Dr. Liat Ben David

A society that "does not count" its scientists, that does not treat them as intellectual thinkers and does not make their knowledge and understanding into the common domain, is in real danger. First article in a series on the importance of mutual understanding of both social and natural sciences

"What if I come to some pub and explain to someone that all he cares about is his glass of beer, what am I working on in my research? Something I invest my whole life in, working and studying for years, and now I have to tell every passerby about it?! It's really a nonsense of the sciences. Anyone who is interested in this, please be respectful and come to a lecture or a course at the university. Let him try a little. Let him prove that he's interested, even though even then I'm really not sure he'll even be able to really understand it."

In unanimous derision, the speaker - a young scientist at one of Israel's academic institutions - canceled all the achievements of the "third culture" that the greats of human science and arts have been working on for several decades. About half a century ago, the scientist and writer Sir C.P. Snow because we live in an increasingly dichotomous world. On one side are the scientists, who advance humanity thanks to groundbreaking research in fields such as neuroscience, astrophysics and nanotechnology but understand very little in the fields of painting, architecture or fine literature; In front of them stand the intellectuals, who are well versed in the many fields of human creation but are unable to explain what acceleration is, what plate tectonics is or cite the second law of thermodynamics.

In other words, modern society is gradually dividing into two cultures, each of which has a different language, and the commonality between them is gradually disappearing. Furthermore: Snow warned that intellectuality itself is gradually falling out of the hands of scientists, while intellectuals are appropriating it and excluding from it knowledge and thinkers such as Dirac, Bohr and Einstein.

Snow's warning received many and mixed reactions. One of the responses was a growing preoccupation with the creation of the third culture, a concept that Snow himself claimed a few years after his article on the two cultures: building a common communication bridge between the people of the exact sciences and the people of the humanities. This bridge was only partially successful. Admittedly, we are inundated with popular scientific literature, which tries to instill in the general readership the main points of scientific knowledge that affects the way we all live and deal with basic intellectual-philosophical questions. Even well-known artists in the fields of literature, cinema, television and plastic arts use broad scientific knowledge in their works. But at the same time, scientists are almost completely absent from the cultural discourse and especially from the cultural recognition given to those with achievements. We have almost no "cultural heroes" from the fields of science. A person is considered a cultured intellectual if he knows how to identify Picasso's works, talk seriously about the beauty of Bach's music and quote Faulkner, while identifying a model of the double helix, knowing the connection between Oppenheimer and the concept of "seven times as hot light" and understanding the laws of thermodynamics does not entitle him to the title Similar.

It is enough if we look at the list of cultural heroes presented in a series of lectures given at a popular institution, which try to make an "acquaintance with heroes who changed world orders - personalities who shaped thoughts, beliefs, society...". Among the ten cultural heroes selected for "introduction" in 2012, there is not a single scientist. Since there are many scientists whose work "shaped the thoughts, beliefs and society", we can only conclude that they are simply not on the radar of the concept of "cultural heroes", or as our children say - they are not counted. A society that "does not count" its scientists, that does not treat them as intellectual thinkers and does not make their knowledge and understanding into the common domain, is in real danger. Human history proves that in the absence of a real bridge, it is easier for various theorists to claim that they are based on scientific facts and spread their teachings without real opponents being able to stand up and prove that the kings are naked. Without a broad understanding of the achievements of science and technology and their importance, the cultural support necessary for their continued prosperity for the benefit of humanity will diminish. Life in the ivory tower will become not only too expensive, too lonely - but also alienated and unnecessary, until the general public denounces it from among themselves. This is also true in the aspect of the humanities: creation and thinking that use, among other things, also scientific and technological knowledge have deeper cultural and intellectual meanings, stimulate more stimulating and enjoyable discussion and lead to further creation at a high level. But worst of all - the future generation of such a society chooses to engage in the sciences and arts less and less, a situation that the State of Israel has been facing for years. The combination between the loss of prestige and the real difficulty of making a living from practicing the exact sciences, the humanities and their teaching is fatal. The emptying of humanities faculties, the drastic drop in the level of science students and the flight of brains from the field of teaching is one of the results of such a society. * (See below: The good ones for teaching) Like any issue, this issue is also complex - and therefore requires a complex solution. Complex is not necessarily difficult, but diverse. It requires the development of different channels that work separately and together as parts of an attachment to create a complete picture. One channel requires the strengthening of experts and excellent in their field. Investing in resources, in programs, in adequate compensation, in presenting the excellent as cultural heroes to be watched. The pyramid must be pulled from the head. Institutions such as the Wolf Prize and the Krill Prize, given to outstanding scientists and artists from Israel and the world, are a beacon that attracts the human motivation to excel. Another channel is the promise of functional literacy for all, in both the exact sciences and the humanities: the knowledge and skills required to make decisions, solve problems and create products in everyday life, actively and intelligently. This is the role of the formal education system, at all age levels. In recent years we have witnessed a revival in the field of strengthening scientific excellence. The time has come to restore and strengthen excellence in the humanities - music, art, poetry - at the forefront of educational endeavors. Channel three is the popular discourse. Meetings between people of both cultures, between them and students from all fields of knowledge, between them and the public. In the pub, in the park, in school meetings, in lectures for the general public. This week I was present at an exciting meeting between Wolf Prize winners, leading scientists from around the world, with Ort high school and college students. The meeting took place in a hall that was filled to the brim with students studying various subjects, which are not necessarily related to the fields of knowledge in which the winners are experts. The scientists treated the students with all seriousness, and in short lectures explained the fields of their research in a language equal to everyone. The students drank in every word, asked relevant questions and asked to hear more. "I'm actually studying drawing, I didn't think it would be interesting, but I really don't want to go!" Said one of the students after she finished "researching" a winner from the field of nanotechnology. In addition to the development of the broad understanding towards the fields of human thought, which is necessary for their continued prosperity, studies prove that such meetings can become key events that are a turning point in the professional choices we make. In other words, such meetings are critical for the existence of a continuing generation in all fields of knowledge. A successful combination of these three channels will help in the creation of a common language, which is necessary for mutual appreciation and the creation of the "third culture". Yesterday I told a friend, an artist by profession, about the visit of the Wolf Prize winners to Ort. Nice, he said, but you will take the artists who win next year to places like Bezalel and Shankar. Don't take them to meet just high school students.

The best for teaching

"In an ideal world, the best of us would be teachers. The rest will have to make do with less," said Aikoka. Observing the state of teaching in Israel reveals that we are light years away from an ideal world. The faculties of humanities are being emptied. The number of students enrolled in science teaching studies is also extremely small - a few dozen.

The severe shortage of teachers leads to the absorption of teachers who lack professional training. Thus, approximately 18% of mathematics teachers are not suitable for teaching mathematics at all, since they do not have a teaching certificate or an academic degree in exact sciences. A report by the Council for Higher Education states that the predicament is not only expressed in the number of students studying science, but also - and above all - in their quality. Leading Israeli scientists claim that they are faced with two serious problems: every year, fewer and fewer students come to them. Those who come, are not really ready for higher studies.

Those who claim that the percentage of those eligible for matriculation has only increased should be directed to examine the nature of that matriculation. Suffice it to give an example from my field: when I was tested in the matriculation exam at the level of five units in biology, in the late seventies, I was required to study chemistry at the level of at least three study units. When I myself taught biology for matriculation at the level of five units, my students were only required to study "chemistry for biologists", the level of which was equivalent to one study unit in chemistry. My son, who is currently studying for the matriculation exam in biology at the level of five units, is doing so without taking a single lesson in chemistry. In the three cases - me, my students and my son - there is a matriculation exam in biology defined as a level of five units. Obviously, this is not the same exam.

Dr. Liat Ben David is CEO of the Wolf Foundation
Summary