Chad Orzel has a couple interesting posts about the relative value of literacy versus numeracy in both society and the academy.

...I do think there is an imbalance here, and it bothers me. If a student were to come in and say "You know, I just can't handle literature classes. I'm no good at reading, and I'm not comfortable with it, so I don't want to take any English classes," most faculty would think that there's something wrong with that person. And yet, I hear functionally equivalent statements about math every time I bring this subject up. Bright people will say "I think science is really neat, but I just can't handle math," and see nothing wrong with that.

If a student professed a distaste for reading as frankly as some express their distaste for math, we'd think that they were intellectually stunted. Illiteracy is a sign of a learning disability, while innumeracy is shrugged off as just one of those things.

I do think that one could argue that in fact much of critical theory in literature is unadulterated crap. Does anyone think that it would be as easy (or even possible) for an English major to hoax a physics paper as it was for Alan Sokal to mock postmodernists? Clearly Sokal understood much more about the literary theories (to the slight degree that they're not nonsense) than any of the humanity professors will ever know about physics--at least enough to pull the wool over their eyes.

What's dismaying to me is that for many, it's not only acceptable to have no ability at math, but many take perverse pride in it, and are often rewarded both in academia and in life.

[via Derek Lowe, who has additional commentary.]

The same also applies to 'logic'. (Whether you consider it math, computer science, or independent.)

Being able to recognize a syllogism is not rocket science. Then the argument devolves into arguing whether fact A or fact B is 'true'... without anyone standing up and saying "The entire argument is illogical."

This quote sums it up for me...

Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house.
--Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love", (Robert A. Heinlein)

PS. anything with n - u - l - l in the email address gives an error on posting...

I respond to your sentiments in a post at my blog.

http://maroonblog.blogspot.com/2005/02/numeracy-versus-literacy.html

The tragedy of this attitude is that it helps contribute to the shortage of technical and scientific graduates in this country. Fortunately, we are able to make up the shortfall from immigration. Still it makes the US less successful in the innovative, technological era we are in than it could be.

Wouldn't you say there's just as much pretentiousness in the hard sciences? Seems to me we need a return to rational discourse in all of academia.

I just hope that one day, everyone will learn most of their stuff on-line, teachers will interact with their pupils on-line, and the curriculum will be allowed to suit the pupils, rather than the schools.

That means if a pupil is stunningly bad at say 'history', then they don't need to pursue it, but they can go twice as quick at the subjects they are good at- until they reach a point where they *need* it for something, in which case they will be motivated to actually learn it.

The idea that everyone is the same is fundamentally flawed. On the other hand, the idea that everyone should have the same chances has a lot going for it.

Wouldn't you say there's just as much pretentiousness in the hard sciences?

Why, no, John, I wouldn't, now that you mention it. Why would you?

I have one foot in both camps. See my personal website for support. Do check out both my resumes, my astronomical art and my writings.

Jason Broander now is primarily on the nonmathematical side. That clearly colors his perspective. Calculus, since it mathematically deals with changes, would, in my view, be valuable for a historian who also deals with changes. He, unfortunately, lives in a subculture that does not think mathematically. Therefore such thinking is not all that valuable.

Is there as much pretentiousness in the hard sciences? Whether as much, more, or less is a little hard to tell. There is, unfortunately, a good bit of it. It also frequently goes unrecognized. Too many people in the hard sciences are short in the social skills area. There are brilliant scientists who should never be put in charge of a group -- even a scientific group. I think most of us have seen such people in action.

Generally, I think a good bit more humility and good deal more listening would be beneficial for too many people on both sides of numeracy divide.

As a frequent reader of Physical Review Letters,
I absolutely think they could be hoaxed in the
way Alan Sokal hoaxed Social Text.

Recently a friend of mine told me that math is the universal language, and therefore other, perhaps non-related majors like English were essentially irrelevant.

Fine. Mathematically describe to me your reaction to standing in front of Niagra Falls. Mathematically describe to me your reaction to seeing the Grand Canyon up close and personal for the first time. Not only mathematically describe these experiences, but do so in such a way that anybody who sees the description could gain some understanding, some insight into those experiences.

Now, it may be that I am unnecessarily disturbed by that statement--I am an English major, and I did originally try to go into Chemistry. But you know, when you get right down to it, I just could not do the math as easily and as quickly as I could do the English. The same holds true for trying to read Chaucer in the original Middle English. Illiteracy and innumeracy(?) are both uncommon in this country--everybody can do at least basic algebra, and do so fairly easily. Calculus is another matter, though this will change in time as math, science, and technology get more and more complex. It is for this precise reason that math and English are both taught in public schools. Without the ability to communicate effectively (something that not everybody can do with equal ease), a society cannot hold together. Without the ability to do the more advanced mathematics (again, not something that everybody can do with equal ease), a society cannot advance. The trick lies in finding the balance, not in making everybody take both math and English.