Science Education

　When I’m browsing sites like X, discussions about science education occasionally pop up. Well, since the discussion forums on X (if you can even call them that?) are basically irresponsible, they’re entertaining at first glance. They do discuss where to secure the funding—or whatever you want to call it—to expand science and math education, and I find myself thinking, “That makes sense.”

Generally speaking, Classical Chinese is singled out as a potential source for that funding. Since I attended a Kosen (a specialized technical college) for my secondary and early higher education, I never experienced preparing for university entrance exams from a general academic track. Not only was there no Classical Chinese, but we even sacrificed World History, Japanese History (modern period only), and—as for science subjects—even Biology and Earth Science to free up class time for math and specialized technical courses. There was absolutely no trace of a well-rounded education left. After I graduated and started working—had it been two or three years?—there was a late-night TV show called The Humiliation of Canossa. From my perspective, I just thought, “That’s a show with a weird title.” I recall a junior from that time (we were in the same grade, but he was two years behind me because he had a bachelor’s degree) saying, “That’s such a brilliant choice of name, isn’t it? ‘The Humiliation of Canossa’—it’s something you absolutely learn in world history…” Nowadays, I devour books on world history and religion, discuss their origins with people from the countries where those events took place, and have even written for publications other than specialized journals—but back then, that was the extent of my knowledge. Needless to say, the driving force behind these activities was the inferiority complex I felt from not knowing about “The Humiliation of Canossa”…

　Well, if I’m going to claim—however modestly—that I received a science-oriented education, I should understand that this problem has structural causes and that “it’s not just a matter of finding the funds and reallocating them.” Still, setting priorities and tackling issues from there is an essential approach. First, we need to consider what science and humanities actually are, and what issues lie within them…

Initially, I simply thought of science as “a body of knowledge that serves people” and humanities as “a body of knowledge that entertains people.” Now, I’ve expanded and refined that view to: “Science disciplines are those that deal with nature,” and “humanities disciplines are those that deal with society.” When asked, “Well, what about ‘social sciences’?” my position is that “those are opportunistic ‘imitation’ disciplines.” Saying “I’m bad at English, so science” or “I’m bad at math, so humanities” is a common excuse among people who’ve studied for entrance exams to some extent, and I think you’ll all nod in agreement. Since the “language” of English is mentioned directly, the contrast is so stark that you might not notice it, but to put it simply, mathematics is a language for describing nature. It’s a matter of which language you choose, and it goes without saying that English is derived from Latin. In other words, in Western countries, the structure is such that “struggling with English” is less common (compared to East Asia, including Japan), so the very concept of dividing fields into “science” and “humanities,” as in Japan, doesn’t even arise…

　Let’s wrap this up. Which structure is easier for you to visualize in your mind? The complexity of the natural sciences, or the social structures represented by human relationships? It probably varies from person to person. Looking back on myself as an old fogey, I was deprived of opportunities to study liberal arts and fell behind in science education, leaving my brain half-baked. I don’t hold a grudge against anyone, but I think the fact that even a half-baked person like me has managed to get by reasonably well is a testament to the excellence of Japan’s education system, and for that I am grateful…