Teaching and the
Expanding Knowledge

The simplification that comes with expanding knowledge
   enables teaching to encompass this knowledge.

Albert Szcnt-GyBrgyi

Our altempt to harmonize teaching
with expanding-or rather exploding-
knowledge would be hopeless should
growth not entail simplification. I will
dwell on this \tmny side. Knowledge
is a sacred cow, and my problem will
bc how WC can milk her while kecp-
ing clear of her horns.

One of my reasons for being opti-
mistic is that the foundations of na-
ture are <imple. l`his was brought
home to mc many years ago when I
joined the lnstitutc I'or Advanced Stud-
ies in Princeton. I did this in the hope
ihat by rubbing elbows with those great
atomic physicists and mathematicians I
would learn something ahout living
matters. But as soon as I revealed that
in any living system there arc more
than  two  electrons,  the physicists
would not speak to me. With all their
computers they could not say what the
third electron might do. The remark-
able thing is that it knows exactly what
to do. So that little clcctron knows
something that all the wise men of
Princeton don't, and this can only he
something very simple. Nature. hasi-
tally. must he much simpler than she
looks to us. She looks to us like a
coded letter for which WC have no
code. To the degree to which our
method< hecome less clumsy and more
adcquatc  and we find out nature's
COCIC.  things must become not only
clearer. hut very much simpler, too.

Science tends to generalize. and gen-
cralization means simplification. My
own science, biology, is today not only

very much richer than it was in my
student days, hut is simpler, too. Then
it was horribly complex, hcing frag-
mented into a great number of iso-
lated principles. Today these are all
fused into one single complex with the
atomic model in its center. Cosmology,
quantum mechanics, DNA and genet-
ics, arc all, more or less, parts of one
and the same story-a most wonder-
ful simplification. And generalizations
are also more satisfying to the mind
than details. We, in our teaching,
should place more emphasis on general-
izations than on details. Of course, dc-
tails and generalizations must he in a
proper balance: generalization can he
reached only from details, while it is
the generalization wjhich gives value
and interest to the detail.

After this preamble I would like to
make a few general remarks,  first,
about the main instrument of teaching:
books. There is a widely spread miscon-
ception about the nature of books
which contain knowlcdgc. It is thought
that such hooks are something the con-
tents of which have to be crammed
into our heads. I think the opposite
is closer to the truth. Books are there
to keep the knowledge in while we USC
our heads for something better. Books
may also he a helter place for such
knowledge. In my own head any hook-
knowlcdgc has a half-life of a few
weeks. So I lcave knowledge, for safe-
keeping, to hooks and libraries and go
fishing, sometimes for fish, sometimes
for new knowledge.

1 know that I am shockingly igno-
rant. I could take exams in college but
could not pass any of them. Worse
that that: I treasure my ignorance; I
feel snug in it. it does not cloud my

naivetC, my simplicity of mind, my
ability to marvel childishly at nature
and recognize a miracle even if I see
it every day. If, with my 71 years, I
am still digging on the fringes of
knowledge, I owe it to this childish
attitude. "Blessed arc the pure in heart,
for they hhall see God," says the
Bible. "For they can understand Na-
ture," say 1.

I do not want to hc misunderstood--
1 do not depreciate knowledge, and
1 have worked long and hard to know
something of all fields of scicncc rc-
lated to hiology. Without this 1 could
do no research. But I have retained
only what 1 need for an understand-
ing, an intuitive grasp, and in order
to know in which book to find what.
This was fun, and we must have fun,
or else our work is no good.

My next remark is about time rc-
lations. The time spent in school is
relatively short compared to the time
thereafter. I am stressing this because
it is widely thought that everything we
have to know to do our job well we
have to learn in school. This is wrong
because, during the long time which
follows school, we are apt to forget,
anyway, what we have learned there,
while we have ample time for study.
In fact, most of us have to learn all
our lives, and it was with gray hair
that I took up the study of quantum
mechanics, myself. So what the school
has to do, in the first place, ia to
make us learn how to learn, to whet
our appetites for knowledge, to teach
us the delight of doing a job well and
the cxcitcment of creativity, to teach
us to love what WC do, and to help us
to find what we love to do.

My friend Gerard quoted Fouchet
as advising us to take from the altar
of knowledge the fire, not the aphes.
Being of more earthly disposition, I
would advise you to take the meat. not
the hones. Teachers, on the whole. have
a remarkable preference for banes,
especially dry ones. Of course, hones
are important, and now and then we all
like to suck a bit on them, hut only
after having eaten the meat. What I
mean to say is that wc must not
learn things, we must live things. This
is true for almost everything. Shake-
speare and all of literature musl he
lived, music, paintings, and sculptures
have to he murle. drama haz to be
ncfed. This is even true for history:
we should live through it, through the
spirit of the various periods, instead of
stormg their data. 1 am glad to say

SCIENCE, VOL. 146


that this trend-to live things-is be-
coming evident even in the teaching
of science. The most recent trend is not
to teach the simpler laws of nature,
but to make our students discover
them for themselves in simple experi-
ments. Of course, I know data are im-
portant. They may be even interesting,
but only after WC have consumed the
meat, the substance. After this we may
even become curious about them and
retain them. But taught before this they
are just dull, and they dull, if not kill,
the spirit.

It is a widely spread opinion that
memorizing will not hurt, that knowl-
edge does no harm, I am afraid it
may. Dead knowledge dulls the spirit.
fills the stomach without nourishing the
body. The mind is not a bottomless
pit, and if we put in one thing we
might have to leave out another. By a
more live teaching we can fill the soul
and reserve the mind for the really im-
portant things. We may cvcn spare
time we need for expanding subjects.

Such live teaching, which fills both
the soul and the mind, may help man
to meet one of his most formidable
problems, what to do with himself. The
most advanced societies, like ours, can
already produce more than they can
consume, and with advancing automa-
tion the discrepancy is increasing rapid-
ly. We try to meet the challenge by
producing useless things, like arma-
ments. But this is no final answer. In
the end we will have to work less. But
then, what will we do with ourselves?
Lives cannot be left empty. Man needs
excitement and challenge, and in an
affluent society everything is within
easy reach. And boredom is dangerous.
for it can easily make a society seek
excitement in political adventure and
in brinkmanship, following irresponsi-
ble and ignorant leaders. Our own so-
ciety has recently shown alarming

signs of this trend. In a world where
atomic bombs can fly from one end
to the other in seconds, this is tanta-
mount to suicide. By teaching live arts
and scicncc, the schools could open
up the endless horizons and challenges
of intellectual and artistic life and
make whole life an exciting adventure.
I believe that in our teaching not only
must details and generalizations be in
balance, but our whole teaching must
he balanced with general human
values.

1 want to conclude with a few re-
marks on single subjects, firsl, science.
Science has two aspects: it has to bc
part of any education, of humanistic
culture. But WC also have to teach sci-
encc as preparation for johs. If we
distinguish sharply between these two
aspects then the talk about the "two
cultures" will lost its meaning,

A last remark I want to make is
about the teaching of history, not only
hecause it is the most important sub-
ject, but also because I still have in
my nostrils the acid smell of my own
sweat which I produced when learning
its data. History has two chapters: Na-
tional History and World History. Na-
tional history is a kind of family affair
and I will not speak about it. But what
is world history? In its essence it is
the story of man, how he rose from
his animal status to his present cleva-
tion. This is a fascinating story and
is linked to a limited number of crca-
tive men, its heroes, who created new
knowledge, new moral or ethical
values, or new beauty. Opposing this
positive side of history there is a nega-
tive, destructive side linked to the
names of kings, barons, generals, and
dictators who, with their greed and lust
for power, made wars, fought battles.
and mostly created misery, destroying
what other men had built. These are
the heroes of the history we teach at

present as world history. Not only is
this history negative and lopsided, it is
false, too, for it omits the lice, rats,
malnutrition, and epidemics which had
more to do with the course of things
than generals and kings, as Zinsser
ably pointed out. The world history we
teach should also bc more truthful and
include the stench, dirt, callousness,
and misery of past ages, to teach us
to appreciate progress and what we
have. We need not falsify history: his-
tory has a tendency to falsify itself,
because only the living return from
the battlefield to tell stories. If the
dead could return but once and tell
about their ignominious end, history
and politics would be different today.
A truer history would also bc simpler.

As the barriers between the various
sciences have disappeared, so the bar-
riers between science and humanities
may gradually melt away. Dating
through physical methods has become
a method of research in history, while
x-ray spectra and microanalysis have
become tools in the study of painting.
1 hope that the achievements of human
psychology may help us, also, to re-
write human history in a more unified
and translucent form.

The story of man's progress is not
linked to any period, nation, creed, or
color. and could teach to our young-
sters a wider human solidarity. This
they will badly need when rebuilding
political and human relations, making
them compatible with survival.

In spite of its many chapters, our
teaching has, essentially, but one ob-
ject, the production of men who can
fill their shoes and stand erect with
their eyes on the wider horizons. This
makes the school, on any level, into
the most important public institution
and the teacher into the most impor-
tant public figure. As we teach today,
so the morrow will be.

4 DECEMBER 1964

1279