Intellectually vacuous, needlessly antagonistic and poorly organized are the marks of an opinion writer who thinks the piece written Monday on the ISU budget distribution was of any value.

Beyond the overtly anti-science theme running though the entire piece, the author exposes his own serious misunderstanding of what science is and how science (and scientists) contributes to society.

I know innumerable scientists who are not, to quote the article, “machines who are unable to appreciate grace, elegance and beauty.” Such gross generalizations merely serve to reinforce the anti-intellectual viewpoint held by so many Americans.

The primary arguments put forth in the article seem to be that: 1. the arts and humanities are the best way to know about the human condition; 2. the budget is not fairly distributed at Iowa State; 3. science is evil and does evil; and 4. all knowledge is equal. The author makes many other factually questionable statements (such as his take on the French Revolution or the relationship between reason and mental illness), but I shall limit my remarks to the main claims. I will address each of these claims in turn. Heretofore I will use the term “art” to refer to all the arts and humanities and “science” to refer to fields such as physics, biology, etc.

First, which is better for answering life’s many questions? Well, it entirely depends on which question you are asking. If you are asking: “What is the best way to treat this disease?” then you ought to consider it using science. If you are asking whether the “Mona Lisa” is a better painting than “The Scream of Nature,” then you ought to consider it using art. Art is valuable in its own right, as is science, but they largely deal with very separate domains. Another analogy to consider — if you want to learn about how the world works (water cycles, atomic movement, DNA structure) then you should use science. If you want to know something about the history of the Peloponnesian wars, should should probably talk to the arts.

Is the current budget distribution unfair? Unfortunately, the data presented in the article does not show the entire picture. The data presented only tell us the overall proportions of the budget distribution. A great deal of vital information is missing and needs to be considered before a campaign to alter the budget is waged. For example, what share of the social sciences budget is actually spent on teaching? What about the science and math budget? The humanities budget? These are just a few of the questions that must be answered before claiming that the system is unfair.

Another important question: Where did the money initially come from? It seems that the author is assuming that the entire budget comes from tuition. I can tell him that is patently untrue. A great deal of the ISU budget comes from state, federal and private grants (a quick search on the ISU home page will pull up several supporting documents). You might argue that grant money should be evenly distributed across Iowa State, and in some ways it is, but some of that larger budget pie may be a result of successful grantsmanship.

It may not. The data and arguments presented does not allow us to make that determination. I would imagine that if the author had asked any of the deans or department chairpersons about the budget, he would have heard a different side of the budget story.

Regarding the question: Is science evil? The unequivocal answer to that is no. Can humans use the results of science to do evil? Yes. The development of various technologies (distinct from science, but that’s a whole other discussion) such as poison gas, submarines and mines are not inherently evil. It is the actions that humans use them for that are evil. The idea that science is to blame for the evil acts seen in the world is as foolish as blaming a soda can for spraying soda on you. The can didn’t shake itself up, a human acting with malicious intent (the “evil” act) shook the can to cause the spray of soda. If you want to lay blame for an evil event, blame the humans that caused it.

The author makes the point at the end that “No one discipline is more important than another. Each is valuable in its own right.” While I agree that one discipline is not more “important” than another, it does not logically follow that therefore they must get equal funding. To reiterate my earlier point, different disciplines are useful to different degrees in difference circumstances. No matter how many paintings you paint, no matter how many history books you read, you’re never going to cure lung cancer. Conversely, no matter how many experiments you do, no matter how much data you collect, you’re never going to produce “Macbeth.” These both have intrinsic benefits, but let us dispense with the false claim that everything is equal. Everything is different, and that’s just fine. We should be OK using tool A for job A and tool B for job B without having to claim that tool A and tool B and equally important in every regard, because they aren’t. You would never use tool A for job B and vice versa.

Finally, regarding that claim that “science does nothing to alleviate the natural condition of man as one in which life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” — I could not possibly disagree more. Take a few seconds to look around you and the myriad of things in your life that you have thanks to the advancement of science. I, for one, would have a much lower quality of life if were not for things like eyeglasses, antibiotics, modern plumbing, microwaves, refrigerators, etc. I’m even writing this response on a computer that I also use for social networking, keeping me connected with peers that would’ve been lost long ago in earlier times. Science can help alleviate our “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, short existence.” Well, at least it did mine.