Battle between Natural Science and Social Science

[Outofin]

In ancient China, officials were categorized into 2 groups: Wen (civilian) and Wu (military). Now, middle school students need to choose their major between Wen (social science) and Li (natural science).

Wen includes art, literature, history, politics and etc. Li includes mathematics, physics, chemistry and others. Put in an over-simplified way and perhaps a wrong way, Wen stresses on memorizing, while Li focuses on reasoning. My middle school chemistry teacher once said chemistry was between Wen and Li, because the class (at least at our level) required lot of memorizing than mathematic and physics.

The rising influence of natural science could be the most significant change between ancient and modern China. Science was dismissed by intellects as a skill of low class workers. But now most of the nation’s political leaders were trained as scientists or engineers during their college time.

In debates on the net, I observe an obvious discrimination toward Wen students. Wen is considers something that can’t be scientifically measured. By saying “he must be a Wen student”, it’s essentially to say “he’s lack of ability of reasoning” or “he’s not worth arguing with”.

I know it’s wrong. But does it make sense? What does the trend mean? How do you think about it?

[gato]

Put in an over-simplified way and perhaps a wrong way, Wen stresses on memorizing, while Li focuses on reasoning.

I think that's because Wen (literature) is taught by memorization in China. Historically, those who wanted to pass the Imperial Exams had to memorize the Confucian classics, among other things, if they wanted any chance of passing. There is no inherent reason for literature (or the humanities) to be taught this way, but since the Imperial Exam is designed to choose smart and literate people who would toe the government line, the ability to memorize was given a greater importance than originality. Various reformers have tried to do away with this reliance on memorization in the educational system, but they've only been able to introduce some minor reforms. The core of humanities teaching in China is still memorization-based.

Wen is considers something that can’t be scientifically measured. By saying “he must be a Wen student”, it’s essentially to say “he’s lack of ability of reasoning” or “he’s not worth arguing with.”

In the US, at least, one would say "s/he must be a liberal arts major." But since most college students in the US are liberal arts majors, that doesn't sting very much.

[studentyoung]

In debates on the net, I observe an obvious discrimination toward Wen students. Wen is considers something that can’t be scientifically measured. By saying “he must be a Wen student”, it’s essentially to say “he’s lack of ability of reasoning” or “he’s not worth arguing with”.

I know it’s wrong. But does it make sense? What does the trend mean? How do you think about it?

I’m glad that you know the trend of discrimination toward Wen students (arts students). What does it mean that arts courses can’t be scientifically measured? Are the scientific standards are the only standards that we should depend on while making a decision? If so, can anybody tell me what makes a great artist like Vincent van Gogh文森特•凡•高 or a great musician like路德维希•凡•贝多芬Ludwig Van Beethoven, by using some scientific standard? Of course, there are some other logics or standards that can help us while making decision. And can anybody tell me whether economy belongs to arts or science? If it belongs to science, why does it so hard to be predicted extremely accurately like doing mathematic equations? I can tell your for sure that economy has both artistic and scientific natures, but I can’t tell you that which part is more than another.

What’s more, arts and science don’t conflict with each other.. Instead, they are working with each other to help us solute all kinds of complicated problems in our society. I would like to give you a simple example. In China, there was a village once suffered from flood almost each year, but the local people had not idea why this happened? Later, some historian found the key from local historical records (地方志书). In fact there were some ditches dug in the village many, many years ago that connected with one of the main branches of Yangtze River (长江) to guarantee local irrigation. However, it also brought the flood to the village during rainy season. Understanding where the problem lay, the local people just stopped up these ditches and dug some wells for irrigation. Of course, no terrible flood has happened in rainy season anymore.

Those who think artistic students are lack of the ability of reasoning or not worth arguing with are those who view the world in an over-simplified way. And I would like to point out that there so many problems in our society in China today are caused by lacking of the knowledge or logic in artistic arts. One of the outstanding social problems in China is its current deficient law system.

Ala, can anyone tell me whether law is an artistic course or not, and whether lawyers are lack of the ability of reasoning or not worth arguing with?

Thanks!

[Outofin]

gato, Wen is a much broader concept than art and literature. It also covers social science, including history and politics. Studentyoung asked about whether economics and law belong to Wen or Li. That’s a good point for us to see that the category of Wen and Li doesn't work very well. I believe law is considered Wen, even though lawyers are definitely the ones who are good at reasoning and arguing. Economics is a mix, because it takes a scientific approach and requires a lot of mathematics, but the works of economists can’t be judged by a matter of right or wrong. Isn’t it one reason why economists don’t have sound reputations as natural scientists?

Let’s compare the exams of these majors. The answer to science exam is a cold fact of right or wrong, and you pursue it. As for art, forgive my ignorance if I’m wrong, I think it’s only a matter of I subjectively like your work or not. While for history or law, whether you can answer a question largely depends on your knowing or not knowing. Unfortunately, the majors in China don’t often require you to analyze the facts that you know.

These people are trained differently and they don’t get along.

I agree with studentyoung on that every expertise is precious and desperately needed by the country. Problems I see here are, first, over-confident engineers could mess up; second, Wen education requires big reforms.

As gato mentioned, most college students in the US are liberal arts majors. Well, that’s even bigger problem compared to China’s. America will lose its edge.

[gato]

As gato mentioned, most college students in the US are liberal arts majors. Well, that’s even bigger problem compared to China’s. America will lose its edge.

Having done both liberal arts and engineering, I know both sides pretty well. They each have their pluses and minuses. I wouldn't say the U.S. will lose its edge because most Americans are not trained to be engineers or scientists. The need for engineers and scientists is very small in the overall market. Take a Google, for example. A well-managed company employing just ten, twenty thousand engineers is capable of providing the web infrastructure for the entire globe, if it is allowed to. Only a very small minority is needed to provide the technical services needed by the broader public.

Out of curiosity, I did a comparison of questions on China's college entrance exam for history and the US advanced placement history exam. You can see some of the questions below.

The format of the Chinese exam is now very similar to that of the US exam. Even the point distributions are similar, with the essay sections accounting for 50% of the score on both tests. But as you'll see, the Chinese exam questions still have a heavy ideological, party-line component. On the US exams, you are expected to be more objective.

In general, I think there's some memorization required for a liberal arts subject like history (just as you have to memorize some formulas or algorithms for the sciences or engineering). But that's only a base-line knowledge. Just knowing the facts will only give you a passing score, at least in the U.S. To get top marks, you have to be able to analyze the facts and write coherently and convincingly about them. Those skills are just as valuable as being able to solve physics problems. In the ideal world, everyone would be trained in both the sciences and the liberal arts, but people being people, we have our natural strengths and weakness and often wish to do as little work as we can get away with to boot. So we have to prioritize our needs and figure out what's the most important.

http://www.pyms.net.cn/xuke/lishi/lshshc/2001cjjwgkt.html

2001 China College Entrance Exam

三．问答题：本大题共3小题，第34题15分，第35题13分，第36题13分，共计41分。

34．东晋南朝、隋唐、明清时期选官制度发生了什么变化？分析导致这种变化的原因及历史影响。（15分）

[What changes occurred in the government office selection system during the East Jin South, Suitang, and Ming dynasties? Analyze the causes of these changes and their historical consequences.]

35．试述中国共产党为建立抗日民族统一战线进行的努力。（13分）

[Describe the efforts carried out by the Chinese Community Party in defeating the Japanese and unifying the country.]

http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/history_us/samp.html?ushist

2006 Advanced Placement (AP) U.S. History Exam Free-Response Questions

3. Explain why and how the role of the federal government changed as a result of the Civil War with respect to TWO of the following during the period 1861-1877:

- Race relations

- Economic development

- Westward expansion

5. While the United States appeared to be dominated by consensus and conformity in the 1950's, some Americans reacted against the status quo.

Analyze the critique of United States society made by TWO of the following:

- Youth

- Civil Rights Activists

- Intellectuals

[bhchao]

As gato mentioned, most college students in the US are liberal arts majors. Well, that’s even bigger problem compared to China’s. America will lose its edge.

There is some truth to that. America is already losing its edge in biotechnology and nanotechnology, two promising technological areas, to Singapore and South Korea, and perhaps also China and Japan. Singapore has an extensive stem cell research program which scientists from around the world are flocking to. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1218061,00.html

The money to fund a certain area exists in the US and eclipses what Asian countries have to offer, but Asian governments have the willpower and determination to develop those technologies to full potential.

If I was a stem cell scientist, I would also move to Singapore if my research ambitions are thwarted by politicians at home.

[studentyoung]

Economics is a mix, because it takes a scientific approach and requires a lot of mathematics, but the works of economists can’t be judged by a matter of right or wrong. Isn’t it one reason why economists don’t have sound reputations as natural scientists?

Check the word below, please. Ala, can anyone offer the original text, please?

上帝把最简单的问题留给物理学家，把最难的问题留给经济学家，而人，是难题的根源。

Therefore, I don’t understand why economists don’t have sound reputations as natural scientists?

Thanks!

[chenpv]

Problems I see here are, first, over-confident engineers could mess up; second, Wen education requires big reforms.

I wholeheartedly agree that some major reforms are badly needed in the current Chinese education system. Well, apart from this, I can also see an urging want of encouraging students of both Wen and Li to be more tolerant with knowledges of the opposite area, and to be more self-motivated to acquire as much information as his/her ability could reach.

I didn't intend to generalize the overall college students in China this way, but my personal experiences did suggest a large swath of students unfortunately falling under the category, who cherish nothing else but what he/she decides for a career. I heard with my own ears that students studying biology emotionlessly alleged research methods in psychology were 'nothing but heretical ideas', and those who study business regard basic science research 'spending too much money and basically useless', even though they all agreed and seemingly aspired to know more about knowledge.

This fact is more disturbing than funny to me, provided that they don't seem to find the right way achieving their aspirations in current situations but consensually justify their attitudes and ways of studying by blaming on the education system... Well

[Outofin]

Check the word below' date=' please. Ala, can anyone offer the original text, please?

上帝把最简单的问题留给物理学家，把最难的问题留给经济学家，而人，是难题的根源。

Therefore, I don’t understand why economists don’t have sound reputations as natural scientists?[/quote']

Yes, the research topics economists try to tackle are more difficult than natural science, in some sense. But unlike mathematicians, I think the progress economists made is very pathetic. Maybe just me, I don’t trust them.

Studentyoung, what does your “ala” mean? Is it a shanghai hua? Or you’re a Muslim? I didn’t know you’re a Muslim.

Having done both liberal arts and engineering, I know both sides pretty well. They each have their pluses and minuses. I wouldn't say the U.S. will lose its edge because most Americans are not trained to be engineers or scientists. The need for engineers and scientists is very small in the overall market. Take a Google, for example. A well-managed company employing just ten, twenty thousand engineers is capable of providing the web infrastructure for the entire globe, if it is allowed to. Only a very small minority is needed to provide the technical services needed by the broader public.

What I said was really a very common idea. The author of The World Is Flat made the same argument in his book. We haven’t found anything other than technology innovation to push economy forward. I don’t doubt that Goolge hires more non-technical staff than its R&D division. But, the service sector comes out of the R&D, doesn’t it? Needless to say, new business mode is important too, but not as powerful as technology innovation.

Maybe a few geniuses are enough. But to get one genius, we need to train a million students.

[studentyoung]

Yes, the research topics economists try to tackle are more difficult than natural science, in some sense. But unlike mathematicians, I think the progress economists made is very pathetic. Maybe just me, I don’t trust them.

I think that it is because some economists in China sell their soul to who pay them huge amount of money that make people don’t trust them and even look down on them. Not just you, Outofin, sometimes Chinese economists don’t trust each other.

Well, let’s go back to the business. In normal condition, people understand natural science helps us to discover the natural world and social science helps us to discover ourselves and our society. (Hehe. Of course, some people, especially some animal experts and insect experts, try to help people understand more on our society by showing us the animal or insect world.) Both natural and social science can help us to understand more on nature, society, and others, which are important for us to create a better future. I don’t know where the battle lies in between natural science and social science.

Studentyoung, what does your “ala” mean? Is it a shanghai hua? Or you’re a Muslim? I didn’t know you’re a Muslim.

I am sorry for the confusion. It is a typo. It should be “Alas. 唉 / 天啊！”.

Thanks!