Choose Darwin over Dickens
Why are arts graduates so proud to be ignorant of science?
By Robin Ince Published 03 March 2011Late last year, I was at a novelist's house, ogling his bookshelves as he made a pot of extravagant tea. The hardback spines showed a broad array of classic 19th-century fiction, novels by or about New York neurotics and a little philosophy. But there was one glaring omission. When he came back, I asked him why he didn't have any science. "Why should I?" he replied. "It's boring." Indignant, I reeled off a lengthy reading list containing tales of biological curiosities and genetic discoveries. Was he not interested in the evolution of the giant tube worm? How a bat's sonar works? He poured the tea and then declared that those subjects weren't really "his sort of thing". What state are we in where educated people can think that science is boring? How is it acceptable to have a good knowledge of Dickens but none of Darwin?
It's time to realise that art isn't as important as science. It's sometimes beautiful, often enthralling, certainly needed; and it's one of the wonderful things that makes us human. But it isn't equal to the scientific knowledge we have amassed over the past few centuries.
I say all of this as one of the many misguided individuals who forsook science for the arts. I finished my English degree knowing how to read a novel and poetry - then, in my cocksure mid-twenties, I was lucky enough to trip over and realise just how little I knew about science. I picked up a Carl Sagan book and I was enthralled by him - and appalled by me.
Our widespread ignorance of science, evidence and the peer review process could have serious consequences. When confronted by the limits of our own knowledge, the temptation is to rely on hearsay and anecdote, repackaged as "common sense". From evolution and climate change to GM crops and the MMR vaccine, columnists and passers-by holler their opinions, even if the facts at their fingertips are scant or fictional.
Otherwise intelligent commentators feel entitled to forthright opinions on the latest science story of the day, because if they are smart enough to critique The Brothers Karamazov, then they can hold their own on dark energy or vaccinations. But while a minority opinion on the role of God and free will in Dostoevsky harms no one, ill-informed anti-vaccination posturing can lead to epidemics and death.
I recently presented a documentary about Schrödinger's cat, a thought experiment in the arena of quantum physics. Some listeners complained that the BBC was airing a show that celebrated gassing animals. Perhaps this level of dottiness shouldn't be so surprising, given that children can opt out of science entirely after their GCSEs. According to a Royal Society report, published on 15 February, only 17 per cent of young people between 16 and 18 took one science AS level or more in 2009.
There is too much at stake for the next generation to be ignorant of science. How can we be living in a time when the human genome is sequenced yet psychics can still become millionaires? We have the most complex structure in the known universe in our skulls. Let's not waste it - even us arts graduates. l
Robin Ince will be touring his Bad Book Club from March. More details at: robinince.com
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


4 comments
Oh you're very right about 'common sense' Robin. My attitude is that if the solution to any problem really is 'common sense' then there can't really have been a problem to begin with.
And it just irritates me the way that people look at scientists' findings and if they aren't immediately understandable to the layperson they just reject them outright, argue that they are wrong because 'common sense' says otherwise.
And then there's the way people seem to misinterpret the fact that in science nothing is ever 100% proven, as a licence to just make stuff up and argue it has just as much credibility as the opinion of the 'so called experts'.
Art isn't as important as science, but it is more interesting.
Fiction is just much more fun than reality; most people read because it is escapist whereas science is just about grey facts. You can say a million things about love, grief, anger, jealousy and so on, create 100 new worlds populated by new people, but science is just restricted to what is.
I do have some science books (the origin of species and an abridged version of Newton's Principia) but I just find most science writing to be starchy, precise and inexciting. If I want to ponder the universe I find philosophy much more interesting. I think it boils down to those of us with a more arts based outlook like to be able to engage with a question and come up with our own answers. Science, which is all straightforward yes and no answers doesn't allow that. I'm all for rationality and logic, but I like imagination too.
Plus of course any scientific subject soon descends into a myriad of statistics and numbers and there is nothing that makes me lose interest quicker.
Sure, I like to know facts about science, but all the stats, the hypotheses, the testing and retesting, the pure maths and incomprehensible terminology all just acts as a massive barrier to engagement.
Science is more important than art? Eff off. What a pinched and pathetic statement. It’s the kind of arrogant, ignorant twaddle that gives these kinds of debates of ‘reason v imagination’ a bad name. From the shouting you hear from Dawkins and his puritanical cheerleaders, science may well be more self-important than art - and to hand it its laurels, it is also among the most destructive human force on the planet - without the enlightenment of science there is no industrialisation of society and war, of nuclear and chemical proliferation, of holocaust and cluster bombs and plastics and pollution tipping the planet towards irreversible ecological catastrophe - according to the measures of contemporary science, and woe to anyone who questions those measures.
Art , imagination - the human fundament of metaphor (and it’s metaphor that science uses to demonstrate its laws; it’s metaphorical thought that may have been our first human trait) are as significant as the most significant hypothesis you can think of. Without art, you’re flicking air on your bleedin’ ipod, you’re driving to nowhere, pal. Without science - the hypothetical science the comic is writing about - you still got common sense and the pleasures and diseases of the imagination. And without the arts of the imagination, there is no science - remember folks, the Big Bang was made up by a Belgian Catholic priest, and Dark matter, the first nanoseconds of the Big Bang- it’s made up and backed up by imaginative thinking - inferences that may be as wrong as Ptolomy’s mad circles to explain the movements of the spheres.
I’m a poet, writer and painter by trade, and I’m fascinated by science, accept its methods, though it’s important to remember that life is not a laboratory, and not everything of value and which has useful truths in it can be double-binded or peer-reviewed, and I reject the idea that science holds a monopoly on the truth, or that statistics hold sway over experience. You can take your tonne of theory - plenty more where that came from - and I’ll keep my ounce of practice. And no, I’m not anti-science; for years I have been obsessed with astronomy even when I understood that the inability of my brain to master higher maths and equations meant I couldn’t ‘be’ an astronomer. Anyway by then I’d found poetry, the quantum mechanics of the word. But I still look to the stars. And I went to visit Patrick Moore once - and it was really cloudy... But science ‘more important’ than art? Don’t demean yourself.
Maybe science and art aren't so different after all though. They are two purest human activities. In fact all human activity can be classified into three types; science, art and self-preservation. All politics, technology, society etc is about self-preservation, making people more comfortable, happier, meeting basic needs, staying alive etc. Often science and art input into that but they are also valuable for their own sakes as what are we preserving ourselves for if not to embark in these two quests.
Post new comment