Why Engineering Freshmen Should Take Humanities Courses 564
Lasrick sends in an article from John Horgan at Scientific American explaining why he thinks engineering freshmen should make a bit of space in their course-load for the humanities. Quoting:
"But it is precisely because science is so powerful that we need the humanities now more than ever. In your science, mathematics and engineering classes, you're given facts, answers, knowledge, truth. Your professors say, 'This is how things are.' They give you certainty. The humanities, at least the way I teach them, give you uncertainty, doubt and skepticism. The humanities are subversive. They undermine the claims of all authorities, whether political, religious or scientific. This skepticism is especially important when it comes to claims about humanity, about what we are, where we came from, and even what we can be and should be. Science has replaced religion as our main source of answers to these questions. Science has told us a lot about ourselves, and we’re learning more every day. But the humanities remind us that we have an enormous capacity for deluding ourselves."
Oh, gag me. (Score:5, Insightful)
The humanities are subversive. They undermine the claims of all authorities,
BULLSHIT.
The "humanities" in modern American academia are so fucking orthodox they might as well be called the "government worship department."
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:5, Funny)
but they do introduce Engineers mainly male engineers to to girls something that normally dosnt happen much briefly.
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:4, Funny)
but they do introduce Engineers mainly male engineers to to girls
As someone who graduated from a technical university, I have one question: what's a "girl"?
Re: Oh, gag me. (Score:3)
Taking some humanity classes would have taught you how to interact with other people.
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep.
The sad thing is that they COULD be all those things but they're not.
They don't even encourage freedom of thought or expression. Its all the same memorize that, repeat this, agree with this position or lose points. Its worse then science because science is at least objective.
The humanities are by their nature SUBjective but are frequently taught as if they are objective without providing any means of testing or disproving anything.
In science, 1 person can disagree with 1,000,000 people and be right. And be proven right. And have his name go down there after as the guy that was right when everyone else told him he was wrong.
Can you do that in the humanities? Nope. Being right or wrong is mostly a popularity contest. Its politics.
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you had a numb of an idea but then you lost the thread. Science and tech are to some extent rudderless. What the humanities should teach is how to build rudders. And good humanities departments do just that. They don't pronounce this or that science or tech good or bad, but rather how to evaluate them in the presence of externalities that have no counterpart at the science and tech level. This is probably what makes you think that they devolve into politics. However, politics is how societies (at least in free ones) enforce externalities. That latter is precisely what is going on now with NSA and information privacy. Privacy is an externality that doesn't translate particularly well into the tech, or if it does, there are several translations, no canonical translation.
Mod Parent Up (Score:5, Insightful)
So true. Or as Albert Einstein said:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm [sacred-texts.com]
"For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.
The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind."
John Taylor Gatto talks about the core purpose of education in his writings, which include self-development, becoming a good citizen, and preparation for work. Unfortunately, so much focus now in schools is on preparation for work, and it is overall preparation for work like rote factory work that is less and less in existence. But, adding some humanities courses when someone is 18-21 can't repair all the damage of a missing part of K-12.
http://www.awakenedamerican.com/content/john-taylor-gatto-explains-secrets-elite-boarding-school-education [awakenedamerican.com]
And:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm [johntaylorgatto.com]
"I'll bring this down to earth. Try to see that an intricately subordinate
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you ever take a humanities class?
I realize there are good humanities classes and bad humanities classes, like everything else in the world, but you don't have any idea of what humanities is all about.
In my freshman humanities class, the first thing they gave us to read was the Apology of Socrates. Out of respect for the short attention span of people today, I'll refer you to the Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_Of_Socrates [wikipedia.org]
Bottom line: Socrates disagreed with most of the other citizens of Athens. He was right. They were wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Bottom line: Socrates disagreed with most of the other citizens of Athens. He was right. They were wrong.
That's your subjective opinion. Remember if you will, that this was written by Plato after the fact and meant as a bit of propaganda. It might be mostly truthful, but it's still meant to push a certain point of view.
Don't use universities to fix schools (Score:3)
Did you ever take a humanities class?
Yes, at school. This is where everyone should be exposed to a broad range of subjects to a reasonable level so they have an idea of which area (sciences, engineering, humanities etc.) they want to study at university. In the system I went through (before the UK government damaged it) everyone going to university had to do maths up to basic calculus, english language and literature plus a foreign language and a humanity up to the age of 16 (O' level) if they wanted to go to university.
If students are no
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps if you took a Freshman English class you'd learn how to read and understand the text of a paragraph.
Nobody taught me that the majority of the population should listen to the advice of the "intellectuals." I didn't write anything like that. They taught me that people should listen to all sides and decide for themselves. And they also taught me that people in a minority view are often right. That's what the Apology of Socrates was about. Go read it.
Re: (Score:3)
Science is not objective. If you question global warming, you'll be descended on by hawks all over the god damn place--try Fark or Slashdot for example. The more real evidence you bring, the more nonsensical this ridicule becomes--for example, the great conspiracy of replacing high-quality core samples with low-quality tree rings to eliminate the medieval warm period is countered with claims that the claims about the hockey stick model are part of a great conspiracy to discredit the hockey stick model...
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree engineering students should get some basic classes on economy and maybe one on communication so they stop making awful presentations. But psychology, sociology, etc., hell no! First of all, it should be the other way around. I have yet to meet a research psychologist that actually uses statistics correctly. And political science and philosophy majors tend to lose flat-out in debates against engineering students, simply because the latter knows how to analyse the situation correctly. Engineering is more about analysing problems, seeing the possible solutions for said problems and then implementing them. Arguing and being sceptic is based on the same premises. So in fact it should be the other way around.
If it's the other way around it might also make more of them fail, reducing the over-supply of humanities majors.
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree engineering students should get some basic classes on economy and maybe one on communication so they stop making awful presentations.
Agree.
But psychology, sociology, etc., hell no!
Disagree. There's no harm in this, and in my experience (like what everyone else's comment is based on, but no one is disclaiming) you can only benefit. Yes I slept through most of my Psychology lectures and still got an A, but there were interesting bits that made me think from time to time. There were humanities classes that made me read books that I would have never picked up, and I'm grateful for it. I still refer back to things I learned in Music History from time to time.
It is my belief that engineering students should take a healthy dose of humanities classes, not as many as possible as the article implies and not none at all as most comments here scream outright. The more well-rounded we ALL are, engineers and humanitarians (if that's the right word here) alike, the better off we all are.
I have yet to meet a research psychologist that actually uses statistics correctly.
Never mind the anecdotal evidence, but it's not proof of anything, especially when I would lay a healthy bet on saying most "engineers" (or those purporting to be an engineer) haven't done an integral since school, and a lot probably don't recall for what they are even used.
And political science and philosophy majors tend to lose flat-out in debates against engineering students, simply because the latter knows how to analyse the situation correctly.
Disagree. But then again, your evidence is as anecdotal as mine. I agree that engineering students typically know how to analyze a problem or situation better, but the Philosophy courses that I took taught me a lot about how you should form logical arguments, critical in these debates about which you speak. On the other hand, the Logic classes at the engineering school taught me the subject from a different perspective, where I learned more about how to combine logical statements to get the desired outcome. Both related, and neither more significant than the other in my eyes.
Engineering is more about analysing problems, seeing the possible solutions for said problems and then implementing them.
Agree.
Arguing and being sceptic is based on the same premises.
Somewhat agree, but a subject such as philosophy is heavily based on forming arguments and being skeptical.
So in fact it should be the other way around.
Agree, in a way. It should go both ways.
TL;DR;
This war on humanities is mostly derived from a preconceived notion that "they're stupid and we're smart" that a lot of students in the sciences have towards those in the humanities. If a lot of us would get off our pedestal for a second, and open our minds to more than what's outside the realm of science, we may just learn something.
It doesn't mean we have to denounce what we've learned in our science and engineering courses.
I was a Computer Engineering and Computer Science major and got a M.Eng.
Re: (Score:3)
The "humanities" in modern American academia are so fucking orthodox they might as well be called the "government worship department."
Wow, that's sad. It's a complete 180 from how college was in the late seventies. Of course, we'd just gotten out of a very unpopular war, the previous President had resigned in disgrace, and we had recession and inflation at the same time.
However, a few humanities courses wouldn't hurt some slashdotters. I haven't seen any in this thread yet, but some comments make me think t
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:5, Interesting)
"We live in a world increasingly dominated by science. "
That's like saying "We live in a world increasingly dominated by reality".
If science doesn't match reality, than it's not science (or atleast the specific scientific theory is broken).
Humanities is religion for people who don't believe in a deity.
Re: (Score:2)
"We live in a world increasingly dominated by science. "
That's like saying "We live in a world increasingly dominated by reality".
That's like saying, "We don't live in a world increasingly dominated by unreality." -- An increase of those graduating with degrees in the humanities vs sciences would tend to prove this statement false.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Humanities is religion for people who don't believe in a deity."
I think it's the other way around. I think majors in the humanities should take some engineering courses... like some basic math, and formal logic.
Then maybe "the common man" would have a little bit better basis to assess what effect "science" issues are having on them, on society, on government.
GP brings up the subject of AGW, and that's a great example. A great many folks have no way of evaluating what's being said, so they just pick a source to go with, whether that's Scientific American (just for example) or Fox News, or (far worse than Fox, according to a recent Pew study) MSNBC.
I'm not taking sides here. I'm just saying that's not informed decision making.
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think majors in the humanities should take some engineering courses... like some basic math, and formal logic.
The most clued-up logicians I have ever met are graduates in philosophy. Logic is a seriously hard course of study, and I haven't met many engineers who are up to the challenge. (It's just a pity that philosophers are doomed to unemployment.)
On the other hand, I don't know if the universities I have attended are typical, but I have noticed an extreme level of erudition with regard to humanities in a majority of the most brilliant mathematics professors I have known. It seems to come with the territory, for some reason. I have not noticed any such broad-mindedness among engineers.
Re: (Score:3)
The most clued-up logicians I have ever met are graduates in philosophy. Logic is a seriously hard course of study, and I haven't met many engineers who are up to the challenge. (It's just a pity that philosophers are doomed to unemployment.)
We just go scoop up jobs from other fields. I am a software developer now. Most of my classmates went to med school or law school. Philosophy majors score highest on just about any graduate exam, so there are loads of options for anyone willing to get a graduate degree. I have found that Philosophy and CS have so many parallels that the transition was quite easy. CS has a lot of roots in Philosophy. ie: Godel's Proof, Turing machines, fuzzy logic, formal logic, AI, neural networks. Most of these concepts w
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's the other way around. I think majors in the humanities should take some engineering courses... like some basic math, and formal logic.
Oh the arrogance of the all-knowing engineer! While this statement is certainly ALSO true, this kind of attitude is exactly why this article was posted...
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Re: (Score:3)
Heinlein forgot to add "write science fiction novels for an adolescent audience".
Re: (Score:3)
For example, every once in a while someone trots out the allegory of Plato's cave (about a person who realizes that they along with everyone else are looking at shadows on a cave wall). It's just a fantasy about how I have secret knowledge which places me above my fellow humans. It's a comforting coping mechanism for peopl
Re: (Score:3)
... like some basic math, and formal logic.
Formal logic is typically taught in the Philosophy department. A lot of CS majors only take Discrete Math which is more or less watered down formal logic cramming 4 semesters into 1.
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:4, Informative)
... or Fox News, or (far worse than Fox, according to a recent Pew study) MSNBC.
You seem to be confusing this Pew study [stateofthemedia.org] with an earlier Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. survey [fdu.edu]. The Pew study found MSNBC to be the most "opinion dominated" station, with 85% of its content being opinion. The FDU survey found FOX viewers to be the least well-informed of all TV viewers... even less well informed than people who don't read or watch any news at all.
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:5, Informative)
Humanities is religion for people who don't believe in a deity.
This may be the case in 101 classes. This is definitely not the case in upper level humanities classes. I majored in Philosophy and Computer Science. My Philosophy courses were much more rigorous in terms of logic and discrete mathematics than anything I learned in CS. My senior thesis was in the field of genetics, and it had nothing to do with ethics or other periphery issues. I studied under a man who was the protege of Thomas Kuhn, who if you were not aware, was a pretty big deal in science... as a philosopher.
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Science is the new Religion. Science is where skepticism comes from, but people point to science for truth and fact. You see people using science as a beating club to force their point, with no clue wtf they're talking about, and with no will to accept any possibility of flaw.
Meditation and spirituality, for example. Spirituality (sans-deity philoso-religious stuff mainly) is a pretty damn good template for self-improvement. The search for inner peace, the justification of morals (people believe the Just World Theory regardless--it's subconscious; you can't live without it, you'd shut down. Good people eventually get a break, bad people get bad karma, and recognizing that that's bullshit won't stop your brain from acting like it's not. The upshot is it's not worth being a good person, since you're just being stupid and missing good opportunities), these are things that are backed and supported by something called spirituality. Meditation is also considered a spiritual thing in most contexts. That all said, when you bring such things up, people throw them out completely and claim not only no value, but active detriment--because it's "hokey superstitious bullshit" and they lean on science and don't want to be poisoned by lies and the outdated beliefs of the uneducated masses. (Funny: Science has shown meditation to be beneficial.)
Living in a sterile world isn't really all that healthy.
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:4, Insightful)
And anyone who's done a humanities course in media knows that, and in fact where probably the first to start pointing out that there is absurd shit coming out of the television right now.
Don't shoot the messenger dude. Fox news was a frigging case study in media abuse in our department long before the wider population started noticing that stuff was not right.
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am ok with engineers taking humanity. However humanity majors needs to take some real math and science.
No one should graduate a 4 year college without at least 2 semesters of calculious and one 200 level or above elective in math and 2 lab science. And colleges shouldn't water them down for humanity majors. They fail they take the class over again.
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:5, Funny)
and spelling. Spelling courses are emportant.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Science/math folks easily understand when non-science folk get things wrong. It's obvious. And so we know they need better science ed.
What's harder to see and not as clear cut is when science/engineering people (usually the low to mid-level people) are boring people who cannot think. Dull, spudly people you don't want to work with.
They don't need to take the humanities for the reasons from the article, they need to take the humaninties because they want to. When you find you don't want to, change colleg
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You fail to realize that some people's brains are not wired for math. Some people that are very successful in liberal arts fields, like writing and law just can't do math well. People who are good at math can't seem to understand this and think these people are just lazy. I see that you got modded to +5. I think that demonstrates the blindness that Slashdotters have on this subject.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm a well paid computer scientist and I've never used calculus. Why does everyone need calculus?
Well, when I was at uni, most computer "science" students were directed into discrete mathematics streams, which were probably more relevant to what you're talking about. The rest of us - whether we were into physics, chemistry or (in my case) biotechnology, do in fact need calculus on a daily basis, because we're dealing with processes involving rates of change and areas bounded by curves on a graph.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oh, gag me. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm a well paid computer scientist and I've never used calculus. Why does everyone need calculus? It doesn't particularly help you understand the news.
They should have taught you using real-world examples. Calculus is a fundamental requirement for Physics and Engineering students.Algebra and Calculus are the most appropriate math courses to require for someone studying a non-Mathematical field.
And in computer science; people doing mathematical modelling.
Computer scientists should be taking classes in applied discrete maths though.
They should take the Calculus class, not because they need it for math exposure, BUT to avoid missing out on what worldly people in other fields have to learn -- the computer scientists get the really in-depth math exposure through the discrete mathematics studies such as Statistics, algorithms analysis, studies of the subjects such as linear algebra, quaternions, permutations, modular arithmetic, discrete optimization problems...
Calculus is required as a foundation to understand some things in Statistics that matter to computer scientists.
Re: (Score:3)
Calculus is required as a foundation to understand some things in Statistics...
Calculus is required as a foundation to understand the world around you, and that's why it should be required.
Re: (Score:3)
Probability & Statistics is the most appropriate math coursework for a non-STEM major. An understanding of statistics helps you in day-to-day life.
Re: (Score:3)
LMOL no Calculus is not fundamental to understanding Statistics.
You can achieve a limited understanding of statistics without calculus.
Calculus is used to derive certain equations used in statistics.
Computer scientists need to fully understand what they are doing, to make sure they are applying valid procedures; not just grab random equations and plug in numbers.
Re: Oh, gag me. (Score:3)
The stats they teach in intro stats classes is arguably worse than useless. You can teach a pure here's-the-button-you-push stats class without it, but if you want to actually understand some of what's going on, you need at least basic calculus, and multidimensional is very useful.
Better idea: (Score:5, Informative)
Scientists should take courses on Rational Thinking [lesswrong.com]. That's basically what you're after here, and it has the advantage of specifically targetting the problems you are trying to address, rather than taking the shotgun approach and trying to get every STEM student to become a Renaissance Man.
Re:Better idea: (Score:5, Insightful)
In your science, mathematics and engineering classes, you're given facts, answers, knowledge, truth. Your professors say, 'This is how things are.' They give you certainty.
Humanist misunderstands what Science and the Scientific method are, tells us we need to be taught to question things, when the entire basis of the field is questioning things, and never believing anything to be fact, knowledge or truth.
Re: (Score:2)
"Every week, hockey-playing science writer John Horgan takes a puckish, provocative look at breaking science. A teacher at Stevens Institute of Technology, Horgan is the author of four books, including The End of Science (Addison Wesley, 1996) and The End of War (McSweeney's, 2012)"
Re:Better idea: (Score:5, Insightful)
In your science, mathematics and engineering classes, you're given facts, answers, knowledge, truth. Your professors say, 'This is how things are.' They give you certainty.
Humanist misunderstands what Science and the Scientific method are, tells us we need to be taught to question things, when the entire basis of the field is questioning things, and never believing anything to be fact, knowledge or truth.
So what you're saying is that 1st year Humanists need to take an engineering course?
I'd definitely agree with that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying I agree with everything the guy says (and he clearly thinks his point is much more insightful than it really is), but I also can't say I ever REMOTELY saw any attempt in *freshman* math or physics classes to question what was taught...
And, whether you agree with it or not, he addresses your exact point in his last 2 paragraphs. Might want to read to the end next time before commenting on his "understanding"...
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like the professor suggests something then everyone questions the idea if it's not apparent where it came from.
Re:Better idea: (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, you think taking a few survey courses in non-technical subjects is molding a student into a "Renaissance Man?" I can't even imagine how horribly boring you must be in any social function...
There is NOTHING wrong with an engineer learning about history, religion, literature, psychology, etc, as long as - which is what the article points out - you approach it with a sense of uncertainty, doubt, and skepticism. In fact, I find it patently absurd that anyone who considers themself remotely intelligent or rational could argue breadth of knowledge is a bad thing.
Re:Better idea: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Better idea: (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
This is empty sophistry, much like a degree in the Humanities eh? T
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There is NOTHING wrong with an engineer learning about history, religion, literature, psychology, etc, as long as - which is what the article points out - you approach it with a sense of uncertainty, doubt, and skepticism. In fact, I find it patently absurd that anyone who considers themself remotely intelligent or rational could argue breadth of knowledge is a bad thing.
Shouldn't the well rounded stuff have been dealt with in high school?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, that is not correct.
Science is about experiments and replication. Rational Thinking or Critical Thinking is the ability to dissect the topic and apply a rational thought behind it. This is not about repeatability or being lead by the facts. This is about being able to make decisions when the facts are too fuzzy to come to a real conclusion.
Take the theory of evolution. It sounds good, but outside of a few simple examples (real life encounters replicated) it has not been proven. Yes we see the bones, but
Re:Better idea: (Score:4, Insightful)
Take the theory of evolution. It sounds good, but outside of a few simple examples (real life encounters replicated) it has not been proven.
Beside the fact that scientific theories can't be proven, we have a pretty good record of being right due to the theory of Evolution. It makes some specific, testable claims. For instance, it claims that you will have homologue organs (organs developping from the same part of the developing embryo) in species that are related, and analogue organs (organs fullfilling similar tasks, but develop from different parts of the embryo) in species that are not. Take for instance the fluke of whales and the tail fin of fishes. They are analogue organs, but develop from different parts of the embryo. The fluke develops from the part of the embryo that normally creates legs, and the tail fin comes from the end of the spine. Thus, fishes and whales are not directly related, and at least one has ancestors that didn't have anything compareable with a tail fin (the cow-like predecessors of whales). Tail fin and fluke are thus analogues, but not homologues.
Thanks to the theory of Evolution we have a pretty good idea what kinds of fossils we can expect to find, and where. It's for instance quite unlikely to ever find the remainings of sixlegged vertebrae, or insects with a lung.
Re: (Score:2)
Or that a skilled designer used common, non-unique internal design features for his creations that are related... Like Ikea furniture
Talking about design features, consider the same relative size of the sun and moon (the ring of fire during an eclipse). Crazy coincidence, planetary evolutionary or design feature?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Crazy coincidence, planetary evolutionary or design feature?
Neither. It is your selective choice given a near infinite sample size.
If you instead of picking the two planetary bodies of your choice picked two randomly you will get a completely different result.
Consider that Fomalhaut and Saturn doesn't have the same relative size. Crazy coincidence, planetary evolutionary or design feature?
Perhaps the author have a point. If more engineers were to study humanities they would be able to put a stop to all the BS that is going on in those fields.
Should take law (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, it could give us some lawyers who actually know what they are talking about.
Re:Should take law (Score:5, Informative)
We do in Canada. Granted the course was a simple introduction, but it sure helped me understand the legal system and its underpinnings.
Re:Should take law (Score:5, Interesting)
Law students should take courses in statistics, statistical modelling, and applied statistics in the social sciences. So that they avoid elementary mistakes like the prosecutor's fallacy [wikipedia.org], and so they could systematically identify biases in their own profession.
I would have thought it more important (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! This! A thousand times this! PLEASE let me never have to deal with anyone who thinks some contrived term someone pulled out of their bottom to create the tools to describe an invented social-philosophical-literary issue is as worthy as a differential equation again.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that Karl Popper was a humanities professor, right?
Humanities can't explain the need for humanities (Score:5, Interesting)
In general, advocates of the humanities have done a poor job of explaining why they are necessary. Which is problematic given that one of the things one would hope that someone in the humanities could do was come up with excellent persuasive arguments about things.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's just Americans.
The rest of the world doesn't even comprehend this bizarre concept of 'the humanities' that you've invented, and would outright piss itself laughing at the ridiculous arguments about its 'necessity' or otherwise in which you manage to tie yourselves up.
'Justifying their existence' is trivial, but also unnecessary: to the demand, I reply 'ars gratia artis'...
Re:Humanities can't explain the need for humanitie (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just Americans, but it is the idea that everything you learn must be done in the interest of making money.
The Humanities are important because they link people with their culture on a deeper level than the latest blockbuster does. They enrich the soul and give you a place in eternity, which in turn boosts your self esteem and reduces depression. Even the things your average geek enjoys like video games and science fiction are informed on a deep level by culture and the arts.
In short, Humanities deal with the things that make life worth living. Dressing it up as hard science does both science and the arts a disservice.
Re:Humanities can't explain the need for humanitie (Score:5, Insightful)
He seems to have it completely back-asswards... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The case for the humanities is easy:
A metaphor
Say life is about finding the shortest path through a graph. Science tells you what the edges of the graph are -- what nodes are connected to what other nodes. Engineering gives you a shortest-path algorithm (say, Dijkstra's). The humanities tell you what node to find the
Re: (Score:3)
Well, let me make the case for them:
1. There's more to "the humanities" than literature and the arts. They also include language and linguistics, philosophy, and sometimes history.
2. There are skills that fall under "the humanities" that are damn useful - anyone can benefit from being able to write or speak well, anyone can benefit from learning what is and isn't a valid argument, and anyone can benefit from learning how to extract an idea of reality from documents that are frequently suspect or outright ly
and the other way around (Score:5, Insightful)
Engineering students should take humanities courses, and they often do. But humanities students should also take science and engineering courses. It's called a liberal arts education, and it should be mandatory. No English major, anthropologist, or historian should get a degree without demonstrating a reasonable understanding of statistics, calculus, physics, chemistry, and computer science.
Unfortunately, most people educated in the humanities are thoroughly ignorant of science, engineering, and mathematics. As a consequences, they are completely baffled by how the modern world works and then proceed to produce utter garbage in their own fields as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
Your criticism of their choice of data set may or may not be valid. Your condemnation of the entire work ("garbage") is not and reflects a lack of understanding of the scientific method.
Same everywhere (Score:2, Interesting)
As someone with an engineering and philosophy degree, I found the humanities are just as deluded if not more so. Sure there is room for interpretation in a way that isn't possible with a science that has a greater likelihood of having a verifiable subject matter. But too often that interpretation is a narrow path. Don't believe me. Try supporting something outside the canon of though in humanities and you will face just as much dogma as anywhere else. The Humanities have their idols too, and they don't
Re: (Score:3)
So it was useful to you. By experiencing both worlds you taught yourself to recognize bullshit.
Complete BULL SHIT (Score:3, Interesting)
Learning Science/Engineering **should** teach logic and an understanding of fallacies. These are the most subversive skills one can have because few things in society measure up when you can see why they are incomplete or just plain wrong.
In Australia... (Score:3)
The majority of engineering programs I have seen in Australian universities include non-technical content in the form of humanities, economics, accounting, and law units. Is this unusual? They are supposed to produce well rounded engineers, but generally demonstrate that square pegs and round holes are only sometimes compatible.
Humanities not science? (Score:2)
The article seems to imply that the humanities are not science, but helping the real science (and lists engineering, of all things). I completely disagree!
Science is a way of thinking, an approach --- you can and must apply it to everything: Humanities as well as Natural Sciences as well as Engineering. It includes rigorous work, sceptical thinking, an open mind, etc. --- and it is necessary for ALL scientists to follow, regardless of their field.
Re: (Score:2)
When the only tool you have is a hammer...
You know the rest.
Wait what (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a funny way to hear "those are only approximations", "there's always going to be some margin of error" or "we're not 100% sure how this behaves".
Re:Wait what (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, if anything taught me to be skeptical it was my science courses; they teach you over and over again how every model you have is a shitty approximation that helps the level of understanding you need for that course. e.g. the model of the atom changes *drastically* between it's primary school introduction, to high school, to undergraduate, to post graduate courses.
The humanities course were full of people that were extremely confident that their morals were correct and universal, there was a much tighter focus on what to think rather than how to think.
I see a lot more people with humanities backgrounds being very confident that God is real and Climate Change is not, and for the same reasons.
science is noisy (Score:3)
Many recorded signals and data are filled with noise making it difficult to tell what you are looking at. I guess it depends what level of science education you deal with, but when I teach, students look at the figures and graphs presented in the literature. Some of the effects are easy to see, others are very subtle. A basic understanding of statistics is critical for describing how we come to measure phenomena. From statistical mechanics, to understanding co-morbid disease, or computer vision, probability distributions show just how variable most things in the world actually are. If you tried to stop a stopwatch at the 1 second mark many times in a row, very rarely do you actually hit the goal, but if you plot your responses they will cluster around a mean of more or less 1 second. A large part of forming a scientist is knowing how to play in these distributions of samples.
What about the process of science? Framing a good question is hard. Is the question testable? 'What does the universe look like' is an ill posed question for a scientist. What form could the answer possibly take? If you can whittle it down, say 'what does the universe look like in the infrared spectrum.' Ok, this we can start collecting data to address, but can you still say what the answer might look like? The more specific the question, the better. If you can't clearly say what form the answer will take, then how can you expect to find it in the data?
How long have we been searching through SETI data? How will you know what evidence of communication from an extraplanetary source looks like? Is it more likely that we will find false positives, or let actual alien missives go undetected?
I think with regards to what the humanities can contribute to science education, philosophy and framing of questions is huge. Ultimately the scientist and philosopher are starting the from same place - wanting to answer a question, the difference is in how they go about finding the answer. Communication skills can never hurt scientists either - how many of you have tried to pick up a journal article expecting it to make sense on the first read? Anything that can help frame and communicate uncertainty would benefit scholars of science, but I think it naive to imply that these skills and foci are not already taught in science curricula.
Scientists and engineers are innately skeptical (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience, scientists and engineers come ladled with doubts on human authority. In fact, it is often something that derives their dislike of the humanities—they trust numbers and figures, but when it comes to interpreting poems or arguing politics, their skepticism leads them to wish little to do with it. (and if it's not skepticism then it's their relative lack of skill)
I go to an engineering school which has almost no arts program. (Some english, history, and philosophy -- just what we need for general accreditation.) Although I myself am pretty keen on literature and many of the humanities, I hear all the gripes from the engineers. And I can tell you exactly what is wrong with this "scientists need humanities to understand such and such" approach. Scientists and engineers understand exactly what they need to achieve what they want, and thoroughly resent being shoe-horned into somebody else's idea of a well-rounded graduate when it has absolutely nothing to do with their personal interest or goals.
If you want the STEM crowd to embrace the humanities, stop trying to justify why they should join your program and come up with a new program especially for them. Let their literature be Isaac Asimov and Frank Herbert. Teach them "Art in Fractional Dimension with Computer Generated Imagery." Give them a music class where they build instruments and synthesizers. Let them walk into the classroom and feel on the very first day like they have something to contribute.
When science and math students walk into a humanities classroom and all their talent and ability in math and science is immediately considered moot, it's not them rejecting the humanities, it's the humanities rejecting them.
Engineers are pre-wired with doubt and skepticism. (Score:2)
The humanities can be too hard (Score:4, Interesting)
I almost flunked out of college in computer science because I couldn't pass my humanities classes. I had to take writing 5 times in order to finally pass--and I mean literally 5.
American English is my native language, and I'm much better at spelling and grammar than most people I know. I just can't think of things to say about literature and history for which I care nothing. In other words, my computer science brain is not well-versed in the ancient art that they eloquently call "bullshit".
A failure of primary and secondary education (Score:2)
If students graduate from university without a knowledge of the world outside their field, this is a despicable failure of the primary (and secondary education). Most education systems are built to give us a broad knowledge at a lower level and let us focus as we move up the educational pyramid, because only the rare renaissance genius has the ability to excel in everything. This story makes it seem as if John Horgan has some fantastic idea about giving us a broader education, but the only difference is tha
"All" authorities? (Score:4, Insightful)
The humanities are subversive. They undermine the claims of all authorities, whether political, religious or scientific.
But not academic.The humanities have become woefully dogmatic and riddled with citogenesis, where theories without a solid body of supporting evidence are held up as solid platforms from which other assumptions can be made. Then again, perhaps the humanities could use an influx of students of engineering and hard sciences. Could be entertaining... [wikipedia.org]
This argument needs a scientific approach! (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with what Mr Horgan is advocating is that his argument is based on his view of the Humanities subjects that he teaches, and the way he teaches them.
His view of science subjects, as fields dominated by facts and accepted doctrine based on those facts is an accurate representation of the way science subjects are taught by many teachers, but it does not match the science teaching I received from the teachers and lecturers throughout my school and university life.
There, I was taught that scientific "facts" are opinions tested and supported by experimentation, and which have not yet been proven incorrect. I was taught to consider the experiences of others, but to keep my eyes open and brain engaged, observe the world around me and to form my own opinions, then conduct my own experiments to determine the validity of those opinions. I was given the freedom to decide on the nature of those experiments - did I want to form experiments with a goal of proving and supporting my opinions (the "bias for confirmation" approach, and one in which Mr Horgan is right - we do have an immense capacity for self-and collective delusion), or did I want to actually test the accuracy of those opinions by trying to disprove them?
In short, my science teachers taught me to see all sides of a question, consider as many variables as I could find, look at things as they are instead of how I would like them to be, and form opinions based on those observations. But also to continuously re-evaluate my opinions in the light of any new information that comes to light.
I cannot comment readily on the teaching of the Humanities subjects, as from the age of 14 I concentrated exclusively on the mathematics and science disciplines, plus the fact that some of my friends were starting to experience a pronounced swelling in the chest area. However, my anecdotal recollection is that a lot of my humanities lessons were dominated by "facts" based on what was written in the Bible, a history book, geological or archaeological "facts", and accepted grammar in foreign languages.
On that basis, I feel a more accurate target for his attention would be the teaching methods in schools across all disciplines, where the individual teachers discourage independent critical thinking in favour of memorizing lists of "facts" designed to (1) prepare students for an exam, and (2) give the teacher an easier lesson plan with less preparation.
To meet chicks (Score:3)
Much better article (Score:4, Informative)
Different experience (Score:3)
"The humanities are subversive. They undermine the claims of all authorities, whether political, religious or scientific."
Courses which encourage skepticism, critical thinking and rejection of authority sound great. In my experience however, many college "humanities" courses only enforced the dogma of political correctness and bland mainstream thinking.
As an engineer, I was required to take a specific "communications" course. I was so pissed at having to endure this politically correct brainwashing that I wrote a letter to the Dean of the college of engineering to complain. One of the textbooks in this course was even named "Diversity". Total waste of time and money. College English? Waste hours dissecting fiction and poetry for supposed hidden meanings? Economics? Mainstream Keynesian/Monetarist crap. Stimulus is good, fractional reserve banking is normal, the Fed is above reproach, etc.
Psychology-101 and philosophy-101 were the exceptions. The statement that "the humanities" are somehow subversive by nature is WAY too broad.
Yet another humanities man clueless about science! (Score:3)
The humanities, at least the way I teach them, give you uncertainty, doubt and skepticism.
Dude, if the way engineering and science are taught doesn't give one a healthy dose of skepticism, they are not being taught right. The humanities are not the answer to incorrect teaching of science or engineering. Feynman's Caltech commencement speech [lhup.edu] is all about how science should be done. It's all about doubting yourself and actively working to undermine your warm feeling of being right. You must be your worst adversary - that way, and only that way, you can be guaranteed to win the battle. You control your worst enemy. That's the way good science is done, that's the way good engineering is done.
alot of this gen edu / filler / fulff should onlin (Score:3)
online classes are better then big lecture classes done by TA's and can be a lot cheaper as well.
College costs are way to high with lot's of skills gaps to be adding more required classes do you want what used to take 4 years to be 6 years now?
Not all humanities courses are equal (Score:3)
1) Old famous philosophers. Meh. More modern philosophers (e.g. Popper, Hofstadter) whose ideas on epistimology are directly related to science. Yes. Worth studying. Engineering is build in science, which is in turn, built on epistemology.
2) Psychology courses related to the psychoanalytic school? Waste of time. Neurophysiology and Evolutionary psychology, in contrast, show you how you do things and why you do things respectively. Machinery only exists to serve people. If you don't understand what people want, and why, you *will* fail.
3) Biology and ecology. Useful for any engineer. Natural systems are studies of genetic algorithms and generated solutions in action at different domains of complexity. You'd be nuts to ignore them.
4) History. A definite yes. Problems (engineering and otherwise) have been solved in *many* different ways over time. Social contexts have drifted drastically. The ancient Romans would be aghast at our political and sexual behaviors. Theirs were *quite* different. Engineering was different too. Consider that their cement was superior to ours.
5) Anthropology, both primate and social. This too, helps explaing why we do what we do, and sort of rubs your nose in the fact that *your* peculiar, local social context, including your understanding of engineering, is just one of many. Something most Americans, engineers or not, fail to realize. Primate anthropology demonstrates that there are many different successful strategies for success in nature. The patriarchal society of Chimps and the matriarchal societies of bonobos couldn't be more different. Both are successful species. You're forced to understand that there are many different solutions for almost every problem.
definately need for a good video game (Score:3)
Bah (Score:3)
In humanities, you parrot the professor and get a good grade. In tech courses, you objectively prove what you know is right and get a good grade.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I was always taught the opposite...
Are you in the faculty of contradiction?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed completely, although technically basket weaving is engineering.