{"id":898,"date":"2020-02-08T09:31:21","date_gmt":"2020-02-08T15:31:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/educationalrenaissance.com\/?p=898"},"modified":"2023-04-29T19:38:54","modified_gmt":"2023-04-30T00:38:54","slug":"rediscovering-science-as-love-of-wisdom","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/educationalrenaissance.com\/2020\/02\/08\/rediscovering-science-as-love-of-wisdom\/","title":{"rendered":"The Flow of Thought, Part 7: Rediscovering Science as the Love of Wisdom"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In this series we\u2019ve been finding arguments for a classical education from the unlikely realm of positive psychology, particularly Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi\u2019s classic Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience<\/em>. After connecting the concept of flow with Aristotle\u2019s link between virtue or excellence and eudaimonia<\/em><\/a> (happiness or flourishing), we\u2019ve been racing through aspects of the liberal arts tradition, in a sort of running commentary on Csikszentmihalyi\u2019s chapter, entitled The Flow of Thought<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I\u2019ve already treated science briefly under the heading \u201cThe Seven Liberal Arts as Mental Games.\u201d<\/a> That\u2019s because the quadrivium, or four mathematical arts, included not only arithmetic and geometry, but also music and astronomy. The quadrivium art of astronomy was the STEM of the ancient and medieval world, focused on developing the skills of tracking, charting and calculating the heavenly bodies and applying such knowledge to the travel technologies of the day. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"eclipse\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

But science itself as an enterprise is worthy of being treated more fully, as our psychologist does in a subsection entitled \u201cThe Delights of Science\u201d (134-138). His main object is to restore science to its rightful place as a potential flow activity<\/a> for his readers. Just as we could become amateur historians<\/a> as a more joyful way of structuring our leisure time and finding meaning in life than watching TV, so for Csikszentmihalyi there\u2019s no reason why we couldn\u2019t become amateur scientists, even if we don\u2019t have \u201cextravagantly equipped laboratories, huge budgets, and large teams of investigators\u201d (134). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As important as this contention is in a day when the\nprofessionalization of \u2018big science\u2019 and the utilitarian cowing to STEM jobs\ncrowds out the love of science, I think we classical educators can take it one\nstep further. It\u2019s not just the love of science that needs to be restored;\nthere\u2019s also an older, more Christian conception of science as philosophy, or the\nlove of wisdom, that needs to be rediscovered if we\u2019re going to recapture the\njoy of science for ourselves and our students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Love of Science<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

But first let\u2019s rehearse our psychologist\u2019s encomium on the\nlove of science. The first step in recovering the love of science is to strip\naway the sense of impersonal system hanging about it. One of the reasons we\ntend to discount the idea of being an amateur scientist\u2014engaging in the work of\nscience simply for the love of it (amateur<\/em> coming from the Latin word\nfor \u2018love)\u2014is because of science being conceived as an impersonal system for determining\nobjective truth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, the problem may be the result of our textbooks\nwhich too often present accepted knowledge and theories without any of the\nstory or narrative of their discovery. But even in our day and age it\u2019s not the\nimpersonal system of science that makes discoveries, it\u2019s individual scientists,\noften working in teams to be sure, but not always. As our psychologist\nemphasizes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt is not true, despite what the advocates of technocracy would like us to believe, that breakthroughs in science arise exclusively from teams in which each researcher is trained in a very narrow field, and where the most sophisticated state-of-the-art equipment is available to test out new ideas\u2026. New discoveries still come to people as they did to Democritus, sitting lost in thought in the market square of his city. They come to people who so enjoy playing with ideas that eventually they stray beyond the limits of what is known, and find themselves exploring an uncharted territory.\u201d (134)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"exploring<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This is an important point to make because one of the natural joys of the scientist is the possible discovery of some new or striking truth about the created order. If our schoolbooks present scientific information without the stories of discovery, the flow experience<\/a> of Democritus, \u201clost in thought,\u201d is left out and the life of exciting exploration of the natural world remains unsung. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Practically oriented parents may push their children into science\ncareers because of the hope of steady lucrative gain, but there\u2019s a reason why many\nteenagers opt for the arts (even if the winner-take-all environment contains\nlittle hope of a sustainable career). The arts wear their enjoyment on their sleeve!\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What may be surprising to us, in our technocratic world, but would not be, if we attended more to the history of science, is that the scientist can just as easily attain flow<\/a>: \u201cEven the pursuit of \u2018normal\u2019 (as opposed to \u2018revolutionary\u2019 or creative) science would be next to impossible if it did not provide enjoyment to the scientist\u201d (134). You\u2019ll remember that one of the requirements of getting into flow is the presence of \u201crules that limit both the nature of acceptable solutions and the steps by which they are obtained\u201d (135). Well, Csikszentmihalyi quotes from Thomas Kuhn\u2019s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions <\/em>to illustrate how scientific research meets this standard:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBy focusing attention upon a small range of relatively esoteric problems, the paradigm [or theoretical approach] forces scientists to investigate some part of nature in a detail and depth that would otherwise be unimaginable\u2026. What then challenges him is the conviction that, if only he is skillful enough, he will succeed in solving a puzzle that no one before has solved or solved so well\u2026. The fascination of the normal research paradigm\u2026 [is that] though its outcome can be anticipated the way to achieve that outcome remains very much in doubt. The man who succeeds proves himself an expert puzzle-solver, and the challenge of the puzzle is an important part of what usually drives him on.\u201d (as qtd on 134-135)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This passage makes me think of how Ravi Jain has advocated for a pedagogy of puzzle, proof and play in mathematics. Apparently the same should apply to the early training of research scientists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aside:<\/em> Download the Free eBook “5 Tips for Fostering Flow in the Classical Classroom”<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Wondering how to practically apply the idea of flow in your classroom? These 5 actionable steps will help you keep the insights of flow from being a pie-in-the-sky idea. Embody flow in your classroom and witness the increased joy and skill development that result!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n