For hundreds of thousands of years, mankind used fire without understanding the basic principles behind it. Even so, fire was a foundation of civilization. Modern technology was born of fire. Without it, the forging of metal would have been impossible, and thus most modern machinery.
Ignorance of basic principles is hardly limited to ancient man. Nor is ignorance today necessarily a vice; it depends on context.
Consider that billions of us use technology without grasping its full scientific underpinnings. How many of us, for example, could accurately explain what electricity is? Or how a laser reads a compact disk? Or what quantum mechanics means? Or how a photocopier functions? Or how oil is refined? Or how aspirin does its job? Or how a sarcastic philosopher's word-processor works?
More people know answers to these than once knew how fire works. Yet many pundits -- including some high-profile Objectivists -- say America will collapse if we do not quickly correct the current level of scientific ignorance.
Back up the philsophy van. The situation is not that dire -- neither for science itself nor for the science of sciences, philosophy; particularly Objectivism.
True, more scientific literacy might be a good thing. As a rule, it's nice to know more than to know less. But it's an error to assume that current levels of illiteracy in science imply the demise of American civilization. Civilization simply does not depend on universal literacy in science, or anything close to it.
The proof is in the economic pudding:
Not only do Americans continue to hold the largest share of world output (about 27%), and of important new patents, but the country has legions of creative small businessmen. These businessmen know a great deal of science. As the Wall Street Journal has often reported, they use it to invent and build products and sell them -- without bothering with the patent system. Why? It can't keep up with fast-moving markets. Depending on the Patent Office today is like depending on a snail to sprint.
There's also the fact that American business continues to attract top-notch scientists from all over the world. They know where real science is respected. They wouldn't come here if they didn't. They comprise the largest brain-gain for any nation in history. America is the place to go if you want to make the most of your scientific skills. That kind of reputation doesn't stick to a dangerously scientifically illiterate society.
In a free society, science hashigh value. Freedom means innovation and innovation demands science. It is therefore largely self-preserving. What out-of-touch universities or high schools fail to teach in modern America, more reality oriented and science-intensive businesses do. As Forbes magazine put it, master degrees aren't as valuable these days as active minds willing to work -- i.e., real scientists are more valuable than "paper" scientists.
Unfortunately, academic measures of science tend to overlook the market's role, emphasizing "paper" science over the real thing. They thus misreport the degree to which science permeates modern American society. High profile indices of science's "failure" -- such as how "little scientific investment the U.S. government and major corporations make -- understate the billions which smaller private businesses put into science without ever calling it that. Their research, development, and production are practically seamless -- and very private; they don't bother reporting it to the government because there's no point to doing so. They're not interested in talking science, but in doing it -- by applying it to new products. This point is often ignorantly tossed into the intellectual trash bin because it is more difficult to quantify; it doesn't fit accepted ideals of scientific investment.
But there is no such thing as "ideal" scientific investment, because the ideal is largely determined by the market, which is constantly generating new needs and values. Only to the degree that businesses meet these new needs and values do they produce ideal investment.
As Rand frequently pointed out, there is no intrinsic ideal in any field, because there is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is that which men choose to gain or keep. Today more men choose CD players and the science that supports them. Yesterday they chose tape decks and the science that supported them. Tape decks are still available, but are losing market share to the new recordable CDs. And CDs will soon be replaced by high-volume RAM chips (my telephone answering machine already uses this technology), whose prices in the last year have fallen from $40 a megabyte to about $6.
We should remember this, too, about modern science and the alleged illiteracy that engulfs it: academic science gets more attention than the "quiet science" of business and industry because academic science depends heavily on government grants. It thereby has an interest in "proving" that U.S. science investment and education are "falling disastrously behind." There's nothing like the scare of disaster to get Congress to toss up more tax-funded investment salad.
The continuing NASA and academic catastrophe-cries about impending global warming are excellent examples. As calmer scientists debunk one NASA claim, NASA and friends fling two or three more out for the media's eager consumption. The whole point is to secure tax money for "combat research" to "fight" one alleged ecological crisis after another.
Finally, several recent studies have established a surprising thing -- surprising if there's a lack of science-orientation and literacy in this nation: there's a glut of scientists on the market. While there are exceptions, such as in some segments of computer science, the glut is widespread. While probably temporary, it nevertheless ranges over many fields, from mathematics to astronomy to nuclear physics to research biology.
Think about it. If there were no glut -- but a shortage -- one might assume that America was "selling itself short" on science. But the market says otherwise. The market says there is enough scientific literacy to meet demand. To claim otherwise is to reach beyond the market, beyond reality, into the realm of intrincisism. To say there's "not enough" of something when the market says otherwise is to apply a standard based on something other than reality.
Does this glut contradict the fact that scientists are still seeking to emigrate to the U.S.? Not at all. That's simply a function of the U.S.'s long-standing reputation -- and of the fact that the foreigners are often very good and hence competitive. The glut is itself a sharpening tool: the duller-edged scientists are being pushed out of the market in favor of the sharper-edged ones. And that's still more evidence that America values science highly; if it didn't, the dullards would win in a process Dr. Jay Lubkin called "the revenge of the C students." The "revenge" is more likely in government and academia, because they tend to be more detached from the marketplace. But overall, no, it's not the case in America today.
Although no one fully understood its principles for millenia, man kept fire because it worked; it helped him achieve other chosen values. For the same reason, with or without the academic and bureaucratic worlds of science, Americans will keep and nurture science; it helps them achieve a wide range of chosen values.
For Objectivists, there's a bigger point, a positive parallel.
Even though most Objectivists don't fully grasp their chosen philosophy, they will keep it, or important parts, because in the market of everyday life it helps improve their conditions -- exactly what a philosophy should do. Thus, I maintain that Objectivism is in no danger of fading merely because the majority's grasp of it is incomplete by academic Objectivists' standards.
A corollary is that it isn't necessary for new Objectivists to feel guilty or inadequately "pure" because they only know some of the philosophy. It's fine to learn and use it a little at a time, as one would science in business. How much learning is up to each individual -- and there's no shame in not knowing how to cross every "t" or dot every "i" that Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff ever penned.
At one end of the knowledge spectrum, a philosopher may want to know all he can about Objectivism. On the other end, a busy layman may have time or money for only a few fundamentals. Morally, neither's choice is more right than the other's. Each matches the context of his values and opportunity; each choice is just as rational and correct as the other.
This is a good place to interject a word about the tendency among some preachier Objectivists to morally admonish others for philosophical ignorance -- regardless of individual context. This is a really stupid thing to do.
Whether it's Objectivism or some other value, all people, particular the young, learn far more poorly if their teachers (or peers) instill fear that incomplete knowledge -- or questioning of that knowledge -- will mark them with a red letter "I." Learning is done best if one feels free to run at his own most affordable pace, unburdened by sarcastic authoritarian put-downs or threats of social exile. Imposing these burdens is childish, doing no good for the reputation of Objectivism in particular or philosophy in general.
A word to students: if you run into people who do this, remember that one of Objectivism's -- indeed, America's -- most powerful values is independence. Don't be intimidated. Be true to your own level of understanding. Stay loyal to your personal mental integrity. Don't sacrifice it in order to work your way into anyone's "inner circle." It's not worth it. Academic or otherwise, a circle that demands that sort of obsequiousness is asking you to give up your mind, your most precious possession. And believe me, there are "Objectivists" out there who will ask exactly that of people -- and get it. Don't be one of them. Hold your personal honor to a higher standard.