This reminds me a little bit of the push to add “art” to STEM schools.
I've noticed this too! I've seen schools describing their curriculum as STEAM, and all I could think was "Isn't that just normal school, but without history?"
Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
11–20 of 237 posts
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#12I would prefer a university structure where B.S. + M.S. is earned in four years by focusing on core major requirements to then have humanities courses offered at no cost via the alumni association as part of continuing education throughout one's twenties.
That's funny because I actually think that the opposite would be nice. You never know what technical knowledge you'll end up needing, so it would be nice to have technical education integrated with work throughout the first several years of working. But everyone can benefit from having a broad education in liberal arts and sciences.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#13I think anything can be a subject to scientific study. Methods are what is essential for a study being scientific, not the subject.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#14One of the most valuable courses I took as an undergrad was an anthropology course. In it, we studied the life of JR Oppenheimer and his relationship with the government patrons of his science.
The sort of scoundrels naturally attracted to power will always find cynical use for talent of the kind possessed by Oppenheimer. However, every aspect of such a relationship will be thoroughly cynical.
If you are a future STEM person, understanding this fact will save you a lot of grief. Learn it early.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#15Why are they even taught in colleges? They're more of a hobby thing really (and more enjoyable that way imo)
Because music, history, and literature are just as important to human society as math, computer science, and physics. This unthinking disrespect for the humanities is embarrassing.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#16Why are they even taught in colleges? They're more of a hobby thing really (and more enjoyable that way imo)
That's what colleges are for. Even for the hard sciences you don't really get much "real" world profit-seeking experience.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#17Kinda funny, I guess.
This is one of those instances where I might care about the case Konnikova was making if she bothered using any quantitative methods to convince me the humanities were awash in quantitative study while qualitative analysis clearly went the way of the dodo. Or that literature programs were churning out students who think network analysis is the best way to understand a text.
In the purely-qualitative realm, it just comes off as pearl-clutching over something I don't think anyone actually believes?
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#18I would prefer a university structure where B.S. + M.S. is earned in four years by focusing on core major requirements to then have humanities courses offered at no cost via the alumni association as part of continuing education throughout one's twenties.
That's funny because I actually think that the opposite would be nice. You never know what technical knowledge you'll end up needing, so it would be nice to have technical education integrated with work throughout the first several years of working. But everyone can benefit from having a broad education in liberal arts and sciences.
Youre forgetting that study is optional and most of us have little to no interest in liberal arts and sciences.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#19This conflates social science with the humanities. I agree with respect to the humanities. Less so with respect to social science. People in large groups do in general follow certain trends and we do have decent ways of establishing causation. Now there is a lot of stuff that people do that we can't analyze quantitatively due to lack of data or other blockers. For these qualitative methods will have to do. Fine, but…
When you describe continental drift, it doesn’t make the plates go faster. When you do economics, it changes the economy. Social sciences have a worse reflexivity problem than the arts, because with art, nothing turns on whether it’s right or wrong. With social sciences, if your hypothesis is wrong but widely believed, you can still kick off seventy years of communism.
Re: Humanities aren't a science and shouldn't be treated like one (2012)
#20If you can do a double-blind controlled study, it's a science.