New Nat. Sci. Plan Attacked By Lecturers

Lecturers in General Education last night called Monday's Student Council suggestions for the reorganization of elementary Natural Science courses impractical and questioned the feasibility of required upper level Nat. Sci. courses for science concentrators.

They agreed that the introduction of two sections, one devoted to technical knowledge and the other to philosophy, would not work. "You can't separate the discussion of the philosophical from the technical aspects, and I can't see how anyone could expect a non-scientist to teach the philosophy of science," said Leonard K. Nash '39, associate professor of Chemistry and Nat. Sci. 4 lecturer.

Unnecessary Variation

The emphasis on technical and philosophical aspects also varies too much through the year to allow equal amounts of time for each every week, according to Edwin C. Kemble, professor of Physics, and Nat. Sci. 2 lecturer. The use of two sections and two section men would also seriously complicate course administration, Kemble added.

Although the lecturers approved the introduction of more upper level Nat. Sci. courses, they disagreed on the need for making them required. "I'm not convinced that it wouldn't be better for some science students to take Humanities and Social Sciences courses rather than further science courses," said I. Bernard Cohen, associate professor of the History of Science and Nat. Sci. 3 lecturer.

Favors Requirement

Kemble felt that an upper level Nat. Sci. course ought to be required, but emphasized the difficulty of creating a course that would appeal to advanced students in all areas of science. William H. Drury, assistant professor of Biology and Nat. Sci. 6 lecturer, agreed saying, "The Natural Sciences don't cut across similar areas as often as the Humanities and the Social Sciences."