Slashdot Mirror
Why Engineering Freshmen Should Take Humanities Courses
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."
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."
I would have thought it more important that humanities students take a basic science and engineering course, so they at least have some understanding of how things work, scientific method, and what a theory is. I think the idea that scepticism comes from humanities rather than science is a joke, and shows a complete misunderstanding of falsifiability and Karl Popper's work on the philosophy of science.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
"In your science, mathematics and engineering classes, you're given facts, answers, knowledge, truth. Your professors say, 'This is how things are.'"
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".
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 for all purposes this could be creationism. Before you yell, that is BS, the question is how do you know it is BS? This is where critical thinking comes it. It allows you to accept the theory of creationism and then build arguments against it using rational arguments. For all we know it might be possible that there is a god that did this, though the probability is quite small. BTW don't believe I am for creationism. I am not, but I also understand in this case it is critical thinking that needs to stand up, not science, since the science is still incomplete.
Don't believe me in this? Look back at the theory of tectonics. Until about 60 years science believed A, and kept on believing A. Even when presented with other facts science believed A. Then somebody came along and said B in a very strong manner, and people had to admit that A was wrong even though their science said it was right. This is an example where we need more critical and rational thinking skills.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
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.
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.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
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...
You aren't doing a degree in engineering to learn about "history, religion, literature, psychology", so yes if it takes away from your engineering subjects it is a bad thing.
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.
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.
Great post! As someone pointed out in the discussion to a similar story a few months ago, once civilization gets above the level of mere subsistence, culture is pretty much the entire point of human existence--something I wholeheartedly agree with, even though I'm an engineer.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
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.
So true. Or as Albert Einstein said:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm
"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
And:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
"I'll bring this down to earth. Try to see that an intricately subordinate
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.