Science: nature versus nurture

Why are more school leavers not interested in pursuing maths, science and engineering at third level? Why are people very prone to believing in pseudoscience, especially in the medical area? These phenomena are usually explained as being a failure of  the education system. Poor teaching of maths at second level by unqualified teachers, inadequate laboratories at second level, scientists who don’t ‘get out there’ and convey the wonders of science and an inherent cultural bias in our society towards the humanities are all seen as important causes.

If one looks at this issue via the lens of the nature versus nurture debate,  the explanation for the science deficit in the population is one based purely on nurture. But what if human beings, on average, are inherently, i.e.  genetically, programmed not to think scientifically? That might seem like a silly thing to say given the technological nature of our world. But, if you think about it, many of the technological advances  that are all around us really are the result of the vision of quite small numbers of people: think of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, the Google guys.

Consider the notion that religion has an evolutionary origin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion). Now,  many people can split their personality into their religious self and their rational, or scientific, selves. But I suspect that many scientists cannot and I would also suspect that the percentage of agnostics/atheists amongst scientists is much higher than it is in the general population. Maybe, therefore, being inherently ‘scientific’ makes one pre-disposed to agnosticism and thus you lose the evolutionary advantage of being religious. There is also some evidence that religious people are happier than non-religious people. It is also well-known that people with a strong bent towards mathematics are more likely to have personalities on the autistic spectrum. In short, maybe nature has conspired against science!

The continued ‘belief’ in pseudoscience is interesting but I think it ties in with what I’ve said above. If one thinks of religion in the broad sense, believing in pseudoscience is not much different from religion – it’s a belief in the mysterious, the magical. It is why otherwise sensible people can believe in something like homeopathy.

Having taught for 25 years on a degree program containing a mix of biology and engineering, I’m now convinced that the nature side of this discussion is a significant issue. No matter how hard I try, I know that most of my students will never really be interested in my subjects – I’m an engineer. They are all interested in biology, however, and indeed biology is a very popular subject amongst school leavers. Why is this? – it’s science after all. I think it’s because biology is not just a science, it’s ultimately about us  and who we are.  I think a similar thing arises with really fundamental sciences like theoretical physics and astrophysics. Even people who have very little interest in science are interested in issues related to the basic structure and origins of the universe.  Reading about the Higgs and the Big Bang is essentially  a religious quest.

Advertisements

About Greg Foley

A lecturer in Biotechnology in Dublin City University for more than 25 years. Trained as a Chemical Engineer in UCD (BE and PhD) and Cornell (MS). Does research on analysis and design of membrane filtration systems.
This entry was posted in education. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Science: nature versus nurture

  1. Pingback: Ninth Level Ireland » Blog Archive » Science: nature versus nurture

  2. An interesting theory. As a depth psychologist the quest for individuation is akin to a ‘spiritual’ oreitnation in life, so the idea that an interest in biology is stirred by the sciences relevance to the meaningfulness and purposefulness of our lives makes sense to me.

  3. Pingback: Tabula Rasa | Homes in Carmel-by-the-Sea Blog

  4. Steve says:

    I would have to disagree with the idea that nature has conspired against science. One of the famous atheists – Dawkins or Harris – describes the birth of religion as human kinds first attempt at explaining the world around them. That it emerged as a result of humans needing patterns, order and understanding cause and effect (which is inherently scientific).

    • greg says:

      You could be right – I’m just an frustrated engineer talkiing! I can see why religion is an attempt to explain the world around us but I’m not sure that it is really a scientific quest, despite what Dawkins might say. Religion is largely based on the imagination and is really a quest for the meaning of existence – most science has has very little to say on these big questions. It is only when we get down to the very big questions like the nature of consciousness, the formation of the universe etc. that I think religion and science tend to converge. My point (I think!) is that the most human beings have very little interest in the more mundane science (which is most of science) and perhaps this lack of interest has some evolutionary origins.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s