Traditionally, science education has primarily been understood as the transmission of natural science knowledge—aimed at mastering and transforming nature, promoting material prosperity, and advancing social development. Its value orientation has therefore been closely aligned with the pursuit of enhanced social productivity. However, within the context of profound changes in the global landscape and social structures, it becomes necessary to revisit a fundamental question: What kind of science education is truly needed? While answers may vary, a review of both the history and future trajectory of science education suggests that its humanistic dimension is not only indispensable but increasingly crucial. 

First, the era of artificial intelligence (AI) calls for the return of the humanistic dimension to science education. The current wave of technological development—marked by high autonomy, broad applicability, and rapid evolution—may be ushering humanity into an expansive phase defined by the pursuit of extreme efficiency. Yet science is far more than a quest for efficiency. Historically, from the 19th-century “literature versus science” debates to the 20th-century “science versus metaphysics” polemic in China and the “Two Cultures” discussions in the West, tensions between science and the humanities have persisted. Today, the AI boom once again elevates science to near-mythical status, while the humanities are increasingly marginalized. Historical experience suggests, however, that in periods of rapid scientific advancement, upholding the humanistic spirit becomes even more necessary for society to confront the uncertainties and risks that such advances may bring.

Second, science itself is not reducible to cold, rational calculation. Although science relies on precise data and rigorous logic, it remains a human endeavor—an intellectual, social, and ethical practice deeply infused with emotion, intuition, and axiological ideals. Science also incorporates an inherently social character: Collaboration, debate, and questioning among researchers are as integral to scientific activity as the conclusions ultimately reached. Kepler’s formulation of the third law of planetary motion—inspired by associating musical harmony with the laws of nature—and Einstein’s development of relativity through philosophical reflection on space and time both illustrate that, like the arts, science depends on imagination, creativity, and humanistic thinking.

Third, science and society shape one another. Scientific activity unfolds within specific sociocultural contexts and is deeply influenced—sometimes constrained—by them. Science cannot be understood apart from its historical, cultural, and social background, nor does its development follow a purely internal logic of knowledge. In turn, science profoundly reshapes modes of production, ways of life, and cultural consciousness, remaining closely intertwined with the human mind, lifeworld, and spiritual culture. Understanding science therefore requires attention to its sociocultural context, while understanding human intellectual and cultural life likewise necessitates engagement with scientific knowledge.

Fourth, science education is ultimately directed toward living individuals. Although science emphasizes evidence, logic, and rationality, its recipients are not abstract entities but living people. Even from a traditional empiricist perspective, science education should help learners internalize objective knowledge and construct their own world of meaning. If science education degenerates into the mechanistic transmission and accumulation of knowledge, many learners may feel overwhelmed by the vast and increasingly complex body of scientific content. Even when knowledge is successfully acquired, the absence of emotional resonance and meaningful experience may lead learners to distance themselves from science once their utilitarian needs are met, making it unlikely that they will regard scientific inquiry as a lifelong vocation.

Fifth, scientific literacy—enriched by a humanistic dimension—is being reinterpreted. Scientific literacy has long been viewed as the core goal of science education. The concept emerged prior to World War II and gained wider currency during the postwar reconstruction era and the Space Race, with its meaning evolving alongside social change. Contemporary scholars have proposed three visions of scientific literacy that embody the humanistic function of science education. The first focuses on the application of scientific knowledge and processes; the second emphasizes science’s role in society and everyday life, advocating contextualized learning; and the third advances “science participation” and “knowing through action,” promoting a form of critical scientific literacy oriented toward dialogue, emancipation, and social–ecological justice. The latter vision represents a model of science education infused with political and ethical concern.

At a time when deeper integration between science and the humanities is urgently needed, science education should highlight its humanistic attributes, and undertake the mission of enlightening the public and translating values into practice, cultivating individuals committed to both personal flourishing and human prosperity.

Zhang Jinglu is from the School of Teacher Education at Nanjing Normal University.